SACHIDANAND DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st of November, 1989, passed by Respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid order of termination has been passed as per Regulation 2.18 (1) of Staff Regulation with immediate effect and the said impugned order has been annexed as Annexure -1 to this writ application.

(2.) THE fact of the case, in short, is that the petitioner was appointed as General Manager under Respondent No. 3, a Government of India Enterprises. The petitioner was posted on training at Calcutta Unit and after the said training, the petitioner was transferred to Kanpur unit and ultimately, he was posted at Ranchi unit as General Manager. On being transferred from Kanpur unit to Ranchi unit, the petitioner suddenly fell ill and as such on the advise of the doctor, the petitioner filed a written application and prayed for grant of leave. By letter dated 7 -7 -1989, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi unit to Bhagalpur unit with effect from 28 -6 -1989, As the petitioner was undergoing treatment and was on leave, he received a letter dated 25th August, 1989 from respondent No. 2 by which the petitioner was directed to see Respondent No. 2 at Delhi within two weeks of this letter to finalise the modalities of formal separation of the petitioner from the company. This letter dated 25th August, 1989 has been annexed as Annexure -8 to the writ application in which it was alleged that the petitioner was disinterested in continuing with the services of the company. By letter dated 12th October, 1989, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that he (Respondent No. 2) had already rescind the transfer of the petitioner to go to Bhagalpur unit and it has been mentioned therein that no application for extension of leave beyond September 9, 1989 has been received. The petitioner gave his reply to the said letter, as contained in Annexure -9, by informing the Respondent No. 2 that application with medical certificate (Original) for leave was already sent on 20th September, 1989 under "Certificate of Posting" and prayed for consideration of the same sympathetically. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the said letter was received by Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 issued the letter dated 25th October, 1989 mentioning therein that leave application and medical certificate are on record. But again Respondent No. 2 repeated that the petitioner is disinterested in continuing with the Organisation and the petitioner is misfit in the Organisation and further directed not to join any where and to settle the terminal dues with the Head Office as soon as the petitioner recovers from his illness. The allegation of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 2 instead of sympathetically considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 13th July, 1989, took a drastic step by terminating the services of the petitioner and that too without giving any opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges levelled against him. The said representation dated 13 -7 -1989 has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure -11 to the writ application. In reply to the said representation (Annexure -11), the petitioner was informed by letter dated 20th July89 that the representation of the petition is under full consideration and by letter dated 12th October89 (Annexure -9), the petitioner was informed that the said order of transfer was rescind. The contention of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the order, as contained in Annexure -1, terminating the services of the petitioner as he was not the appointing authority of the petitioner.

(3.) BEFORE admission of this writ application, the petitioner had filed a supplementary affidavit in which he has taken a point that the Staff Regulation 2.18 (1) of Modern Food Industries (India) Limited (Respondent No. 3), under which the impugned order has been passed, is unconstitutional, inasmuch as, this Regulation has granted an arbitrary and unregulated power to the employer and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently purported termination of the services of the petitioner must be held to be void and non est.