H S AGARWAL Vs. MS INSTRUMENTATION LTD , KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 3rd February, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1674/84. The brief facts are as under :-

(2.) The appellant-petitioner was appointed as Additional General Manager (Finance and Accounts) by the Instrumentation Limited (the respondent) vide order dated 30th July, 1983 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-company. The appointment was on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining of the company and it was the term of the appointment that during the period of probation or any extension thereof, the appointment might be terminated by either side without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. Vide letter dated 31st July, 1984 (Armexure-6) the Additional General Manager (F&A) informed the petitioner that his service would stand terminated with effect from 31st July, 1984 and along with the said letter a cheque for Rs. 3,208/- being one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice was sent to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case set up in the writ petition was that the appellant-petitioner was earlier employed with M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited as Finance Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer and he resigned from the service of the said Corporation on 9th July, 1982 and the said Corporation was enquiring into certain complaints against the appellant-petitioner and such enquiry was pending before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Govt. of India and because of the fact that the said Corporation sent the statement of charges levelled against the appellant-petitioner, the services of the appellant were terminated. The order of termination was also challenged on the ground that the petitioner was appointed with the approval of the Board of Directors but before terminating his services, no approval was taken by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who had passed the order of termination for terminating his services. The petitioner also contended that his work had been satisfactory. The writ petition was contested by the respondent who denied that the services of the petitioner were terminated because of any charges received from the abovesaid Corporation. It was also denied that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was not authorised to terminate the services of the petitioner-appellant and it was submitted that because the work of the appellant was not found to be satisfactory during the period of probation and he had not improved in spite of being advised to do so, his services were terminated in terms of the contract of his employment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge vide the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.