The termination of employment must adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem, and damages can be awarded based on relevant legal precedents.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') was appointed on 28th March, 2003 with the Appellant No.1 on a contract appointment as a Project Manager for a World Bank project. The appointment was on a contractual basis for a period of three years. He was to be paid a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/- per month for the duration of the contract. If he discontinued service before the expiry of three years, he would be required to refund Rs.50,000/-. Plaintiff joined the service on 28th March, 2003 vide appointment letter Ex.P1. According to the Plaintiff, the Appellant No.2/Defendant No. 2 had a personal enmity towards him and in order to harass him, order dated 13th August, 2003 was passed by which his term of employment was curtailed to two years at the discretion of the department with one month’s prior notice. His designation was also changed from ‘Project Manager’ to ‘Consultant’. He made a representation to the authorities requesting to revert him to his original position and on not getting a positive response, on 22nd September, 2003 he proceeded on leave. On 25th September, 2003, the impugned termination order (Ex.P7) was passed on various grounds, including on the basis of non-performance. By this termination notice, his services were terminated with immediate effect and one month pay was given in lieu of the notice period. Various representations were made by him. He sought a personal hearing but none was granted. He, thus, filed the subject suit with the following reliefs.

“(a) declaring that the order dated 13.08.2003 reducing the contractual period of service from three years to two years is illegal and therefore not binding and enforceable.

(b) declaring that the termination order dated 25.09.2003 is illegal and therefore not binding and enforceable.

(c) for damages of Rs.7,25,000/- along with future and pendete lite interest @ 12% per annum and cost of the suit.

(d) pass such other or further orders as may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

2. In the written statement, the government took the stand that the Plaintiff was on probation and liable for termination on short notice. The termination order was also defended on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance was found lacking. In any event it was submitted that the Plaintiff was on a contract appointment and not on a permanent post. The remaining allegations were denied.

3. The following issues were framed in the suit :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as claimed in para “a” of the prayer clause of plaint? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as claimed in para “b” of the prayer clause of plaint? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as claimed? OPP

5. Relief.”

Plaintiff’s Evidence

The Plaintiff filed the following documents.

“Ex.P1 - Copy of appointment letter dated 28th March, 2003.

Ex.P2 - Copy of letter dated 10th August, 2003 of good conduct.

Ex.P3 - Copy of certificate dated 29th August, 2003.

Ex.P4 - order dated 13th August, 2003.

Ex.P5 - Representation dated 22nd August, 2003.

Ex.P6 - Representation dated 22nd September, 2003.

Ex.P7 - Termination order dated 25th September, 2003.

Ex.P8 - Copy of letter dated 7th October, 2003.

Ex.P9 - Copy of medical certificate.

Ex.P10 - Notice dated 27th September, 2004.

Ex.P11 & P12 - Postal receipts.”

4. In his cross examination, the Plaintiff gave details about certain projects where favouritism was shown by his superior officer. He denied the suggestion that the basic terms of appointment could be changed.

Defendants’ Evidence

5. On behalf of the Appellants/Defendants (hereinafter 'Defendants'), Mr. K. Jayakumar, who was the Defendant No.2, gave his evidence along with Mr. R.K. Pandey, Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The deposition of Mr. Jayakumar was to the effect that after the Plaintiff was appointed, the instructions of