H. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged, inter alia, the letter of termination dated 21-11-1995 issued by the respondent-company through its Managing Director, forthwith terminating the service of the writ petitioner, who was serving at the relevant time as the General Manager of the respondent-company. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said termination order is arbitrary, passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play and also bad in law being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Initially, on 8-12-1995 when the writ application was moved, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to pay the petitioner his emoluments month by month and allow him to enjoy the facilities that were being enjoyed by him while in service, for six weeks from that date with liberty to apply for extension of the said interim order. Liberty was given to the respondents to apply for variation, modification, alteration and/or cancellation of the said order. The respondents thereafter filed an application for vacating the interim order and an application for extension of interim order was also filed by the writ petitioner. The said interim order was subsequently extended up to 22-1-1996 and ultimately on 19-1-1996 there was a direction to the effect that the entire petition should be heard expeditiously and it was directed that the writ application and the application for vacating interim order to be heard analogously and time was fixed for completing all affidavits and the interim order was extended until further orders.

(3.) Ultimately the matter was heard on 1-3-1996 when the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application on the ground that the respondent No. 1, namely, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO) was a part of the Island Administration and that therefore the writ petitioner held a civil post under the Central Government. On the basis of this reasoning the learned Single Judge held that the application under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the termination of the writ petitioner's service was not maintainable and that the appropriate forum was the Central Administrative Tribunal established under the Central Administrative Act, 1985. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitioner's appeal and held that the service under the AN IDCO was not covered by the provisions of the said Act. The Division Bench, accordingly, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for determination on merits. It was, however, made clear that the appellate court had not gone into the question that the ANIIDCO was a State or other authority within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution. The writ petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit annexing certain documents to show that ANIIDCO was in fact amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The respondents have also produced both records pursuant to a direction of this Court.