The court established that the unilateral re-designation of the petitioner's post, the improper termination process, and the violation of principles of natural justice were improper and deemed the petitioner to be reinstated in service.

JAISHREE THAKUR J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.1996 (Annexure P-8) whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. 11.12.1996 on expiry of three months notice period starting from 11.09.1996 passed by respondent No.5 and order dated 12.03.1998 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 11.09.1996 has been dismissed.

2. In brief as stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined respondent No.3-Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation on 23.02.1981 as Labour Welfare Officer in pursuance to appointment letter dated 30.01.1981. Services of Labour Welfare Officer are governed by the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1952). Vide letter dated 13.06.1995, petitioner was given the additional charge of the post of Safety Officer wherein it was stated that the petitioner would be responsible for maintenance of all statutory and non-statutory record of safety, periodical inspection of various items and accident enquiries. Since the duties and responsibilities of Safety Officer were similar to Labour Welfare Office, petitioner accepted the additional charge of Safety Officer. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.06.1995, petitioner was also assigned additional duties of the post of Training and Safety Officer, however, the charge of Safety Officer stood withdrawn from the petitioner vide order dated 28.09.1995. On 19.10.1995, respondent No.4 unilaterally without taking consent of the petitioner and prior approval of respondent No.2, re-designated the petitioner’s post as Senior Training and Development Officer. The petitioner protested against the aforesaid action to respondent No.4 but he was assured that it would not affect the petitioner in any manner and salary of the petitioner though revised on 31.10.1995 was on the same scale as was admissible for the post of Labour Welfare Officer. On 04.07.1996, though respondent No.5 fixed the salary of the petitioner as consolidated plus perks with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1996 but total emoluments remained the same and therefore, the petitioner while relying upon the assurance given by respondent No.5 that his services would not be affected adversely and no financial loss would be incurred, did not raise objection to the same. However, vide letter dated 11.09.1996 issued by respondent No.5, services of the petitioner have been terminated without assigning any reason w.e.f. 11.12.1996 in terms of para 3 of his appointment letter dated 30.01.1981. Against the said termination order dated 11.09.1996, petitioner filed a statutory representation/appeal, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 12.03.1998 passed by respondent No.1. Aggrieved against orders dated 11.09.1996 and 12.03.1998, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that services of the petitioner had been terminated without holding any enquiry or proving him guilty of any misconduct, simply relying upon clause 3 of the appointment letter of Labour Welfare Officer. Services of the petitioner were terminated as Senior Training and Development Officer whereas the respondents while doing so, relied upon para 3 of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner for offering appointment as Labour Welfare Officer. The petitioner was given additional charge of Senior Training and Development Officer while he was posted as Senior Welfare Officer. As per Rule 6 of the 1952 Rules, vide which services of Senior Welfare Officer were governed, before passing an order of punishment against the Welfare Officer, he has to be informed of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and given a reasonable opportunity of def