S S MULEY Vs. J R D TATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated the 3rd September 1957, terminating his services under Regulation 48(a) of the Air-India Employees' Service Regulations. The relevant facts leading to the petition are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner joined the service of the 4th respondent-Air India Corporation as an Assistant Superintendent (Stores) in 1954. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Purchase) in 1960. In 1964, he was given a further promotion as a Senior Deputy Superintendent (Purchase), and the last promotion he earned was in the year 1968 when he was posted as Purchase Manager. During this period, the petitioner also earned as cash award of Rs. 500 and was often associated with important decisions of technical nature.

(3.) One the 30th December, 1974, respondent No. 3 the Controller of Stores and Purchases, wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that further to the discussion he had with the petitioner, he was happy to inform the petitioner that it was proposed to depute him as Supplies Manger at London in the first week of February, 1975. By the said letter, the petitioner was also informed that this posting at London would be for a period of 2/3 years and the petitioner was asked to treat the said letter as an advance information so that he could make his domestic arrangements. The letter ended with best wishes from the third respondent. On the 9th February, 1975, the petitioner was given the order of his posting at London which mentioned, among other things, that his period of posting at London was three years. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner resumed his post at London. However, within about months of his resumption of the post, an order dated the 11th June, 1975 signed by the third respondent was served upon him terminating the posting with immediate effect, and asking him to hand over the charge to the local official, and to return to Bombay and report himself to the third respondent. On the expiry of his leave joining period, the petitioner returned to Bombay on the 22nd July 1975 and went to resume his duty on the next day, i.e., 23rd July, 1975. However on that day he was handed over a letter signed by the third respondent asking him to go on forced privilege leave for four weeks with immediate effect. When the said period of forced leave was about to expire, another letter dated the 22nd August, 1975 was served on him and the forced leave was extended for a period of 15 days. On the eve of the expiry of this extended leave, i.e. on the 4th September, 1975 the third respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner, asking him to see him at 9 a.m. on the next day, i.e., 5th September, 1975.