SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Cal) 99

High Court Of Calcutta
MAHITOSH MAJUMDAR
LT.COL.DIPANKAR BHATTACHARJEE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. R.  3020  Of  1984
Decided On : 04/03/1987

Advocates Appeared:
A.B.CHATTERJEE, Jayanta Mitra, JAYANTA SINHA, K.K.BANDOPADHYAY, S.N.BANERJEE

The order of termination of service was illegal and violative of the rules of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a copy of the complaint against him, was not given an opportunity to rebut the charges of insubordination, and was not given a hearing before the order of termination was passed.

Headnote:

SERVICE LAW - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - INDIAN IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - EXTENSION - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - LOSS OF CONFIDENCE - INSUBORDINATION - MALA FIDE - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES - PERSONNEL POLICY CIRCULAR NO. 92, DATED 14-9-81.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army, was appointed as Deputy Chief Security Officer in the respondent company, which comes within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's service was initially for a probationary period of twelve months, which could be extended at the discretion of the management. The petitioner's probationary period was extended by another six months, but his services were terminated before the expiry of the extended period on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and loss of confidence. The petitioner challenged the order of termination, alleging mala fide on the part of the Additional Chief Security Officer, respondent No. 6, and violation of the rules of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of termination was illegal and violative of the rules of natural justice. The court found that the petitioner was not given a copy of the complaint against him, was not given an opportunity to rebut the charges of insubordination, and was not given a hearing before the order of termination was passed. The court also found that the order of termination was based on the ex parte finding of the concerned authorities that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and that there was a loss of confidence in him. The court held that the finding of loss of confidence was the foundation of the order of termination and that the respondents had failed to act fairly and with fairness.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of termination was illegal and violative of the rules of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a copy of the complaint against him and an opportunity to rebut the charges of insubordination? 3. Whether the order of termination was based on the ex parte finding of the concerned authorities that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and that there was a loss of confidence in him? 4. Whether the finding of loss of confidence was the foundation of the order of termination? 5. Whether the respondents had failed to act fairly and with fairness?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of termination was illegal and violative of the rules of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a copy of the complaint against him, was not given an opportunity to rebut the charges of insubordination, and was not given a hearing before the order of termination was passed. 2. The order of termination was based on the ex parte finding of the concerned authorities that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and that there was a loss of confidence in him. 3. The finding of loss of confidence was the foundation of the order of termination. 4. The respondents had failed to act fairly and with fairness.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of termination, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pay all the service benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been fastened with the order of termination within a period of four weeks from the date of communication.

MAHITOSH MAZUMDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed against an order being No. G. M. (P and A)/3622, dated September 30, 1983 passed by the General Manager (P and A), Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , respondent No, 4 herein, terminating the service of the petitioner. The said order of termination as contained in Annexure I to the writ application reads thus:"lt. Col. D. Chattacharyya, Kulyi. You were appointed in the Security Department of the Company under Appointment Officer No. PL/od/9/2470, dated 1. 10. 81 as Dy. Chief Security Officer on terms and conditions contained therein. You, in terms of the contract were on probation for a period of twelve months from the date of your joining (1. 4. 82) which could be extended at the discretion of the management. Since your services during the probationary period were not found satisfactory, in order to give you a chance for improvement, your probationary period was extended by another period of six months which expires today. The management has carefully evaluated your performance during the extended period of probation also but finds the same to be not satisfactory. Accordingly your services with the Company are terminated with effect from the afternoon of the date hereof. You may please hand over the Company's properties including papers lying with you to Sri S. C. Rakshit, Security Officer, you will be paid your dues as per Company's rules on receipt of 'no demand Certificate' from all concerned. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Please acknowledge receipt. Sd. S. N. Das, 30. 9. 83 general Manager (Panda ). "

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief may be stated as follows: the petitioner joined the Joint Services Wing as cadet in January, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner in the month of January 1952 joined the Indian Military Academy as a Gentleman Cadet and on the 13th December, 1953 the petitioner was again commissioned as an officer in the Indian Army as 2nd Lieutenant. On 13th December, 1953 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Captain. Prior to the said promotion the petitioner since the year 1956 held the acting rank of Captain. Since 1962 the petitioner held the acting rank of Major and was subsequently promoted as Major on the 13th December, 1960. On the 13th December, 1978 the petitioner was promoted as Lt. Colonel. In the Army the petitioner held various responsible posts and also rendered the service with distinction and ability. Consequent upon the selection of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer in the respondent company which by reason of instrumentality, agency and control comes within the reach, sweep and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India the petitioner took premature retirement from the Army on March 31, 1982 although the petitioner had services still left. The copy of the letter of appointment is contained in annexure 'd' to the writ application. The relevant provisions of the Personnel Policy Circular No. 92, dated 14. 9. 81 as contained in Annexure 'e' to the writ petition are contained in paragraphs 4. 1 (b), 5, 2, 6, 4 and 7. 3 of the said Annexure. The said paragraphs for the sake of convenience are quoted below: -"4. 1 On fresh appointment. (b)all other executives appointed in IISCO/still shall be on probation for a period of twelve months. 5. 2 : where it is found that a probationer is not making satisfactory progress or shows himself to be inadequate for the post in any way, the short comings shall be brought to his notice during the probationary period itself to enable him to make special efforts at self-improvement. 6. 3 : subject to para. 6. 2. orders of confirmation shall be issued within a period of one month of the expiry of the probationary period. 7. 3 : the decision to extend the probation shall be communicated to the executive within one month of the expiry of the initial probationary period. The executive should also be counselled regarding inadequacies/ deficienci




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top