Point of Law: If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upon the competent officer to have the enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee could be terminated in terms of the order of appointment or rules giving one month’s notice or pay salary in lieu thereof. Even if an enquiry was initiated, it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms of the rules or order of appointment.

JUDGMENT :

(J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant of a writ application and is directed against the judgement and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Special Civil Application No.7527 of 2020 dated 1st September 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ application affirming the order passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad putting an end to the contractual service of the appellant herein.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, are as under:

“2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in the Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short). The petitioner was appointed after a skilled test and stenography test as well as after interview. The appointment order dated 31.05.2018 is on record.

2.2 The case of the petitioner is that thereafter he was promoted as a Private Secretary and attached to the Member (Judicial) Ms.Manorama Kumari vide office order dated 14.06.2018. The case of the petitioner is that though more than 50 employees’ terms have been extended, the petitioner’s service contract has been brought to an end on 17.06.2020 without assigning reasons.

2.3 Allegations have been made by the petitioner against the Member Judicial – respondent no.5 – Ms. Manorama Kumari stating that when he was working as a Private Secretary, in the Month of June 2018, the learned Judicial Member Ms.Manorama Kumari lost her father leaving behind a widow Sonia Devi, two brothers and the Judicial Member herself. It is the case of the petitioner that at the behest of the Member Judicial, since there were some Fixed Deposits in the name of the deceased father in the State Bank of India, Gujarat High Court, the petitioner was directed to submit an affidavit showing that only the Member Judicial and the mother were the heirs. The petitioner drafted that affidavit being unaware that the Member Judicial had two brothers at the relevant point of time. The case of the petitioner is that he sent an affidavit as per the instruction of Member Judicial and also got an obituary public notice published of the late father. The case of the petitioner is that later on the petitioner came to know that the Member Judicial had two brothers and apprehending that the false affidavit filed by the petitioner at the behest of the Member Judicial would lend him into trouble, he asked for a copy of the affidavit from the Member Judicial, which the Member Judicial refused to provide.

2.4 The petitioner as per the petition states that on 25.02.2020 he asked for a copy of the affidavit. Annoyed by this, on 26.02.2020, the Member Judicial sent an Email to the President of the National Company Law Tribunal recommending that the petitioner’s services be terminated. The petitioner was then subsequently transferred as the Private Secretary of Hon’ble Member Technical Shri Prashant Kumar. The case of the petitioner is that the termination during the pandemic is in violation of the circular guidelines of the Central Government not to adversely terminate or put an end to the service conditions of the employee.”

3 In paras 3.1 and 3.2 respectively of the impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge has noted the submissions canvassed on behalf of the appellant herein (original writ applicant). We quote as under:

“3.1 He would submit that that the petitioner has been victimized due to the malafide intentions of the Member Judicial. Only because he insisted that a false affidavit that was filed at the behest of the Member Judicial be withdrawn and copy thereof be given to him, the next day after such a demand, the respondent no.5 Member Judicial recommended that services of the petitioner be terminated.

3.2 Mr.Soni would further submit that it is an admitted fact as is evident from the order dated 08.05.2020 that but for the extension of the services of the other employees it is only th