1984 Supreme(Del) 81

High Court Of Delhi
RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
INSTITUTE FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED - Respondent
Civil Writ 1128 of 1980
Decided On : 04/04/1984

The power to appoint and dismiss the Director is vested in the Standing Committee with the prior approval of the Government. The Chairman of the Standing Committee cannot by himself exercise this power, even though he has obtained the prior approval of the Central Government.

Headnote:

DIRECTOR - DISABLED - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - VALIDITY - RULES OF THE INSTITUTE - STANDING COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN - COMPETENCY - NATURAL JUSTICE - CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - REINSTATEMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Raghunandan Prasad, was appointed as the Director of the Institute for the Physically Handicapped. The post was advertised. He was selected by the Standing Committee. By letter dated 2nd May, 1977, he was offered a "temporary appointment" to the post of Director on a salary of Rs. 1500-60-1800. The material terms of the appointment letter are the following : "(V) He will be on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of appointment. The probation period may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority subject to a maximum of one year. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render him liable to discharge from service or revision to his parent employer, as the case may be ; (vi) The appointment may be terminated at any time on three months notice from either side, viz. the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reason ; (vii) Other conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time in the Institute for the Physically Handicapped. " ON these terms, the petitioner accepted the appointment. By order dated 31-7-1978, the petitioner was confirmed as Director with effect from 1-7-1978. By letter dated 2-8-1978, the Chairman of the Standing Committee informed the petitioner that be "is appointed to the post of Director on a regular basis with effect from 1-8-1978". THE petitioner s parent department was the All India Institute of Medical Sciences where he had served as a Vocational Councillor in a permanent capacity before he became the Director of the Institute. He bad kept his lien on that post. Finally, the lien was terminated with effect from 19-11-1978 as would appear from the letter of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences dated 30-11-1978. One increment was also granted to the petitioner on 5-1-1980 in his new post. BY letter dated 22nd August, 1980, the Chairman of the Standing Committee terminated the services of the petitioner. The order was in these terms: "in pursuance of the terms and conditions of appointment as Director, Institute for the Physically Handicapped, accepted by Shri Ragunandan Prasad, vide his letter dated 11-5-1977 and contained in ORDER No. IPH/dir/77 dated 17-9-1977, it is hereby ordered with the approval of the Central Government, that the services of "shri Raghunandan Prasad stand terminated with effect from the afternoon of 22nd August, 1980. It is further ordered that Shri Prasad will be paid salary equivalent to three months pay and allowances, in lieu of the notice period envisaged in the terms and conditions of service of Shri Prasad. " SO within the short span of 3 years the services of the petitioner were terminated. On 27-8-1980, the petitioner brought the present writ petition under articles 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of dismissal dated 22nd August, 1980 passed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Chairman of the Standing Committee did not have the power to pass an order of termination of the Director s services. Only the Standing Committee could pass it with the prior approval of the Central Government. The Chairman is not the Standing Committee. 2. The Director was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the termination order was passed. The principles of natural justice were not observed. 3. The Director s appointment was not purely contractual. It was a public employment. The Institute is an "authority" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution. The Director holds a post in public employment. 4. The termination order was a nullity. The Standing Committee could not ratify it. The original defect could not be cured so as to affect adversely a third party, namely, the Director.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chairman of the Standing Committee had the power to pass an order of termination of the Director s services. 2. Whether the Director was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the termination order was passed. 3. Whether the Director s appointment was purely contractual or a public employment. 4. Whether the termination order was a nullity.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to appoint and dismiss the Director is vested in the Standing Committee with the prior approval of the Government. The Chairman of the Standing Committee cannot by himself exercise this power, even though he has obtained the prior approval of the Central Government. 2. The principles of natural justice require that a person should be heard before a decision is taken against him. The Director was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the termination order was passed. 3. The Institute is an "authority" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution. The Director holds a post in public employment. 4. The termination order was a nullity because it was passed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee who did not have the power to do so.

Final Decision: The termination order dated 22-8-1980 is set aside and quashed. The Director is reinstated in his post. He will be entitled to his salary and other consequential benefits from the date of the termination order. For such period as he remained in employment elsewhere he will not get full salary but such salary as is found due after deducting what he has received in employment. He will also be entitled to costs of the petition.