YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the termination order dtd. 08/06/2009 issued by the Secretary, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. as well as the show cause notice dtd. 20/10/2008.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner are that he was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) as a Probationer Trainee vide order dtd. 02/08/2007 on the terms and conditions as enumerated in the order itself. Vide clause 1, 2 and 3 of the terms and conditions of the appointment, it was specified that the initial appointment was as a probationer trainee for a period of two years on a fixed remuneration and the service of the probationer trainee can be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice in writing or by giving one month's remuneration in lieu thereof except in case of misconduct where the provisions of the AVVNL Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter called as 'CCA Regulations 1962') will be applicable and in that case, the candidate would not be entitled for any compensation. In clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the appointment order, it was specified that the other terms and conditions of service will be the same as are applicable to the employees of AVVNL of similar category.

(3.) On the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the show cause notice has reflected allegations of misconduct and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as per RSEB Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 and therefore, charge-sheet was must alongwith enquiry report in terms of CCA Regulations, 1962. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was violation of principles of natural justice as the conditions of Rule 7(1) of the CCA Regulations, 1962 were not followed. He further contended that the impugned termination order is stigmatic in nature which has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and if the stigmatic order is passed without conducting regular enquiry, the same is illegal as per settled position of law held in State Bank of India Vs. Palak Modi:2013(3) SCC 607; Union of India Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi: 2010(8) SCC 220; Tarun Kumar Khatri Vs. AVVNL: 2014(4) WLC 288; Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala: 2020(2) SCALE 661.