ASHOK KUMAR CHAOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Annexure-B order dated 25.1.94 issued by the Managing Director, Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to give all benefits of service from the date of dismissal.

(2.) The facts; as stated by the petitioner, are as follows : In pursuance of an advertisement published in the news paper for the post of Deputy General Manager in the Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd., (for short the 'TRIFED'), the petitioner applied for the said post. Interview was held and the petitioner was selected. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed Deputy General Manager by Armexure-A letter dated 22.9.92 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the General Manager (Personnel & Administration), TRIFED, The petitioner joined duties in TRIFED Zonal Office at Guwahati on 7.10.92. His appointment was on probation for a period of one year from the date of his joining which could be extended for a further period at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. By Annexure-A/1 order the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for a further period of six months with effect from 22.9.93. Thereafter, by Annexure-B order dated 25.1.94 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner at the time of his appointment submitted certificates showing that lie passed AMIE from the Institution of Engineers (India). He also passed MBA from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also stated that he belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. However, on verification during the period of his probation the authorities came to know that these informations were not correct. Acxording to the petitioner, all the information supplied by him were correct and he belongs to Barar Community of Punjab, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste Community. In spilte of that by Annexure-B order dated 25.1.94 the petitioner was dismissed from service. According to the petitioner, the order of dismissal was illegal and arbitrary and the same was passed only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition and the petitioner also filed affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents it has been stated that the petition is not maintainable as the TRIFED is not a State or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Airticle 12 of the Constitution of India. The Government of India neither have substantial control over the management of TRIFED nor it has been funded by, the Government of India. Therefore, the TRIFED is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. On merit the respondents have stated that on enquiry made by the Secretary of the TRIFED, the Academic Adviser, Graduate Professional Programme of the University of Illionois vide letter dated 20.10.93 stated that the petitioner did not receive MBA Degree from the said University at Chicago or from Urbana and the petitioner never attended in either of the Institutions. The Institute of Engineers (India) vide Annexure-C letter dated 26.8.93 also informed the Asstt General Manager thus :