LALCHHANHIMA Vs. MIZORAM APEX SERICULTURE COOPERATIVE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawm, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3 despite service of notice.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned termination order dated 08 -01 -2015 issued by the Managing Director, MASCOS Ltd.

(3.) MR . L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the petitioner appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the office of the Mizoram Apex Sericulture Co -operative Societies Ltd (hereinafter 'MASCOS Ltd.') by an order dated 25th September, 2000 and thereafter, he was confirmed and regularized as a Sale Service - 1 with effect from 1st May, 2011 by an Office Order dated 7th June, 2011. He submits that the petitioner is serving for nearly 14 years with effect from September, 2000 till date. While the petitioner was serving as such under MASCOS Ltd, the petitioner received a communication dated 2nd July, 2014 asking explanation on the charges of smelling/intoxication on the basis of a resolution of the Emergency Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 26 -06 -2014 as well as written complaint filed by several Primary Society. The petitioner made his reply asking for forgiveness by his reply dated 16th July, 2014. Thereafter, in its 53rd Board of Director meeting held on 19th December, 2014 by Resolution No. 1 a decision was taken to terminate the petitioner from service and accordingly, the Managing Director was instructed to inform about the matter to the petitioner. Thereafter, the resolution of the Board of Director was placed before the respondent No.3 which was approved by communication dated 07 -01 -2015. Consequently, the impugned termination order dated 08 -01 - 2015 was issued. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the MASCOS Ltd has its own Staff Service Rules of 2011. Therein, Rule 11 provides for minor penalties and major penalties and Rule 12 provides for suspension. He submits that the manner in which the petitioner was terminated from his service was done without following the prescribed procedure of law inasmuch as, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He submits that though the Staff Service Rule, 2011 does not prescribe for disciplinary proceeding, it is already a settled principle of law that before an employee is terminated from service, the employee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The respondents in the present case have failed to hear the petitioner and has issued the impugned termination order dated 08 -01 -2015 and therefore submits that the impugned termination order dated 08 -01 -2015 should be set aside and quashed.