Back
High Court of Patna (RANCHI BENCH)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
U.D. Bhargava @ Umesh Datt Bhargava – Petitioner
Vs.
Hindustan Copper Limited & ors. – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 3078 of 1994(R)
Decided On : 28.7.1999
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - RULE 10(17) OF NMDC SERVICE REGULATIONS - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PUBLIC INTEREST - MALA FIDE - REINSTATEMENT WITH BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, appointed as Mining Engineer in 1972, was promoted to Chief Manager (Mines) in 1991. In 1994, his services were terminated under clause 3 of his initial appointment letter. Petitioner challenged the termination as illegal and arbitrary, claiming it violated service regulations and principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order was issued under clause 3 of the initial appointment letter, not under Rule 10(17) of the NMDC Service Regulations, as claimed by the respondents. The court held that the termination was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide, as the petitioner was never communicated about his alleged poor performance and was not given an opportunity to improve.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination order was passed under clause 3 of the initial appointment letter or under Rule 10(17) of the NMDC Service Regulations? 2. Whether the termination was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with benefits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the termination order was issued under clause 3 of the initial appointment letter, not under Rule 10(17) of the NMDC Service Regulations, as claimed by the respondents. The court relied on the wording of the termination order and the fact that the petitioner was never communicated about his alleged poor performance or given an opportunity to improve. 2. The court held that the termination was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. The court found that the termination order was issued without following the principles of natural justice and that the respondents' claim that the termination was in the public interest was not supported by evidence. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with benefits. The court found that the petitioner had been illegally and arbitrarily terminated from his service and that he was entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.11.94, issued by the respondent no.2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Copper Ltd whereby in purported exercise of the terms and conditions contained in Clause 3 of the appointment letter the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect and in lieu of notice a cheque equal to the sum of three months pay was enclosed therewith and further for quashing the office order dated 11.11.94, whereby in compliance of the order of termination the petitioner has been released and was advised to collect the dues.
2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Mining Engineer in the scale of Rs.1175-1525/- on the basis of appointment letter dated 16.9.72 issued by the General Manager of the Indian Copper Ltd. On 16.1.89 the office order was issued under the seal and signature of respondent no.2, whereby Rule 10(17) of the National Mineral Development Corporation's Regulations as adopted by Hindustan Copper Ltd. was modified and it was inter alia laid down that for purposes of premature retirement, an employee shall retire from the services of the company on attaining the age of 58 years provided that the competent authority may require an employee to retire who is inefficient, corrupt or medically unfit on attaining the age of 50 years on giving three months notice or pay in lieu thereof. The petitioner's further case is that during his service period there was nothing against him nor he has been ever given any notice calling him either inefficient, corrupt or medically unfit. The petitioner's date of birth is 10.7.1941 and was to retire on 10.7.1999 after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner states that he was shocked and surprised to receive office order dated 11.11.94 whereby his services were terminated with immediate effect in terms of clause 3 of the appointment letter and on the same day the respondents proceeded to release the petitioner on the basis of the said office order. The petitioner states that no power is vested to the respondent no.2 to terminate the service of the petitioner in the manner as has been done. It is stated that action on the part of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the impugned order dehors the provisions of clause 10(2) of the National Minerals Development Corporation's Service Regulations as adopted by Hindustan Copper Ltd. The petitioner's further case is that in absence of any departmental proceeding having been done against the petitioner, the respondents cannot be allowed to terminate the services of the petitioner without following the rules and regulations.
3. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner further stated that he was appointed as Mining Engineer and his service was confirmed after 6 months thereafter in April, 1973 an order was issued by which his post was designated as Sr. Mining Engineer. In 1979 the post of Sr. Mining Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Mining Superintendent. In 1983 the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Mines Superintendent which was subsequently renamed as Manager (Mines) in 1984. Subsequently an interview was held on 3.10.89 amongst the Managers (Mines) for being considered for promotion to the post of Sr. Manager (Mines). The petitioner was interviewed and the Director (personnel) issued a letter dated 6.10.89 whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sr. Manager (Mines). The post of Sr. Manager (Mines) was confirmed on 9.4.90 and post was re-designated as Chief Manager (Mines).
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed on 16.9.72 as Mining Engineer on the terms and conditions, inter alia, that he will be on probation for six months. It is stated that there is a provision under regulation for premature retirement of an employee and the impugned order of termination (Annexure 3) was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
