K.MAHARAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as "Administrative Officer-C" at Radio Astronomy Centre (RAC) at Ooty.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as "Administrative Officer-C" at Radio Astronomy Centre (RAC) at Ooty on 27.10.2011, the appointment was on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining duty. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent centre at Ooty on 26.12.2011. According to the petitioner, right from the date of joint duty, the Head of RAC at Ooty [hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Head (RAC)'] was not cordial towards him. He was humiliated either by the Head (RAC) himself or by the others at the instance of the head. Even though the petitioner was entitled to occupy the quarters and despite the availability of the quarters, he was not allotted on flimsy grounds. Further according to the petitioner, his every effort was criticized or found fault with by the Head (RAC). All his attempts to bring the same to the notice of the superiors were ignored. However, realizing his future and that of his family, he bore his humiliations patiently.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier, on 10.05.2012, a memo came to be issued by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the Head (RAC) on a very flimsy ground. Thereafter, a fact finding committee was constituted to look into the allegations in the complaint and the counter complaint made by the Head (RAC) against the petitioner and the petitioner against the Head (RAC) respectively. The petitioner had appeared before committee. However, nothing had transpired in the committee and nobody was examined. While so, at the verge of completion of probation, the petitioner was called to give his presentation about his performance in the review meeting held on 16.11.2012. Accordingly, he had submitted his report at Pune. Thereafter, the order dated 21.11.2012 impugned in the writ petition came to be passed by the 3rd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his performance remained unsatisfactory. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination is not a termination simpliciter rather the said order is stigmatic and punitive one. The termination of the services of the petitioner was done only at the instigation of the Head (RAC). Even though the Administrative Committee which was constituted to assess the compatibility and suitability of the petitioner had submitted a report stating that the petitioner had involved in several irregular practices, no enquiry was conducted and a copy of the report was also not furnished to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the earlier charge memo was issued with mala fide intention. Without proper enquiry being conducted on the allegations leveled earlier, the petitioner was found fault with by the committee which ultimately have an impact on the termination of the services of the petitioner. When an appeal was taken out by the petitioner, the 1st respondent has simply confirmed by the order of termination without being applied his mind. Hence, this writ petition challenging the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent and as confirmed by the 1st respondent.