( 1 ) PETITIONER who was employed as Sales Manager by Respondent No. 1-Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order Annexure `i dated 21/04/1980 by which is services were terminated.

( 2 ) PETITIONER Joined service of the Company as Sales Assistant on October 23 196 7/04/1973 the petitioner was promoted as Sales Manager on probation and he was posted at Kanpur. On satisfactory completion of the probation period he was confirmed as Sales Manager. is the petitioners case that has performance as Sales Manager at Kanpur was excellent and he was therefore transferred to Ahmedabad in or about 1975. It is submitted that on account of the efforts made by the petitioner the sales position had materially improved. However in 1977-78. the petitioner received several complaint from the customers and merchants regarding the quality of bread manufactured by the Company. The petitioner therefore drew the attention of the authorities to these complaints by addressing letters to the General Manager. It is submitted the the quality of the bread did not improve but on account of the petitioner bringing to the notice of the authorities complaints made by the customers and merchants the petitioner incurred the wrath of the Chairmen-cum-Managing Director of the Company Petitioners case is that in the seniority list of Sales Manager Grade II issued in December 1978 he was at the top of the list of nine officers.

( 3 ) IN the Confidential report for the year ended on 31/03/1978 the general evaluation of the petitioners performance was Sincere able and hard working He has the market sense. In column No. 9 regarding fitness for petition to a higher grade in the Confidential Report it was stated Quite fit. The entries made in the other column of this Confidential Report are stated in paragraph 5 of the petition. The Chief Marketing Manager agreed with the aforesaid remarks made by the Chief Manager in his Confidential Report. However the Chairman-cum-Managing Director respondent No. 2 herein who is the reviewing authority made a note to the following effect: Physically finds it difficult to tour and does inadequate field work. According to the petitioner these remarks made by respondent No. 2 were absolutely unjustified and contrary to the General remark made by the Chief Manager with which the Chief Marketing Manager hid agreed. The petitioner. Therefore made representation against the above adverse remarks made by respondent No. 2. However by a letter dated 16/03/1979 addressed to the Petitioner by the Chief Personnel Manager the petitioner was informed that his representation was not accepted. It is the petitioners case that he was victim of the frank and forthright Opinion expressed by him with regard to the quality of the bread manufactured by the Company and that it was on account of such opinions that respondent No 2 had made the aforesaid adverse remarks. According to the petitioner when respondent No. 2 visited Ahmedabad on 20/11/1978 he asked the petitioner to resign. The petitioner however asked for the reasons for the same but they were not given to the petitioner. The petitioner placed this fact on record on 27/11/1978 and made a written complaint in that regard to the General Manager on 3/02/1979 a copy of which was forwarded to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that as a result of the above complaint made by the petitioner he was transferred to Calcutta under order dated 6/04/1979 The order of transfer according to the petitioner was mala fide. The petitioner however took charge of his post at Calcutta.

( 4 ) PETITIONER thereafter received a memo dated 24/09/1979 alleging that he had not asked for security amount from the Ex-Canteen Contractor of I. P. C. L. Baroda and that the outstanding from certain parties exceeded the security amount. The petitioner gave reply to this memo on 12/10/1979 The petitioner thereafter proceeded on leave and came