NIHARENDU PATRA Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Roy learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant - petitioner was appointed as Plant Manager of Rundung Cement Factory by order dated 28/9/1991 after undertaking selection process by the duly constituted selection committee. The terms of the appointment state that he was appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 6,500.00 per month, that he shall be on probation for a period of two years; that he shall be a full time employee of the Company and shall not take up any other assignment of any nature without prior permission from the Company. The ;appellant-petitioner some time in the year 1993 sustained injury and thereafter he was under treatment. By order dated 19/10/1995 Annexure-A/30) the petitioner's services have been terminated in pursuance of the resolution No. 5 of 27th Meeting of the Board of Directors of Manipur Cements Limited held on 15.9.95 in exercise of power conferred on the Managing Director under Rule 2 of Termination of Service in Chapter II of Manipur Cements Limited (Staff) Rules, 1994 (for short the Rules 1994) with effect from 9.1.95. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner approached this High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not join his duty and continued to remain on leave despite he has been asked, and directed to join his duty and thus the: Management has rightly terminated the: services of the petitioner. It is further stated that since the petitioner was absented himself from duty without authority with effect from 9/1/1995 his services have been rightly terminated from 9/1/1995 by order dated 19/10/1995 and such an order off termination from back date cannot be called as an order of termination passed with retrospective effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12/9/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 251 of 1996, the present appeal is filed before us.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in a case of permanent employee, his services cannot be terminated by resorting to the method as adopted by the respondent No. 2. The requirement of law is that he should be given an opportunity to explain the allegation made against him and after holding a proper enquiry, if he is found guilty of the charges, his services can toe terminated. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has taken shelter under Rule 1 and 2 in the heading of termination of services of the Rules 1994, whereunder it has been provided that the Company may terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving three months notice or on payment of substantive pay for three months in lieu of notice in case of the Manager. The power of the termination of service of an employee shall be exercised by the Managing Director with the prior approval of the Board. Thus according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner's service could have been terminated by giving him three months notice or on payment of notice in lieu thereof. The petitioner's service having been terminated by the Managing Director with the prior approval of the Board the order of termination is in accordance with law.