JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

Hans Kumar Srivastava, petitioner herein, was appointed on the post of Deputy Manager vide order, dated 20-11-1974, by the U. P. State Leather Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd. , Agra. Thereafter, by order, dated 18-4-1977, passed by the Managing Director, the designation of the petitioner was changed to the Divisional Manager. On 18-5-1983 the petitioner was given three increments, and, thereafter, he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in the year 1981.

2. By the order, dated 31-3-1984, contained in Annexure II to the writ petition, the petitioners services were dispensed with by giving him three months notice, in terms of service rules applicable to the employees of U. P. State Leather Development and Marketing Corporation, Agra, which is set out herein below :

"a confirmed employee may be discharged from the service of the Corporation under the orders of the competent authority on v three months notice or by giving 3 months salary in lieu thereof. The competent authority for purposes of this rule will be the next higher level than the appointing authority for that category of post. The competent authority on getting a recommenda tion from the appointing authority for the discharge of a con firmed employee with reasons thereof^ may give an opportunity to the employee concerned for explaining himself before coming to a decision".

3. From above, it is crystally clear that the petitioner was given three months salary in lieu of three months notice, and, thereafter his services were dispensed with by the aforesaid impugned order.

4. When the instant writ petition was moved by Sri B. P. Srivastava, learned council, appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 23-5-1984 no interim order was granted by the Bench consisting of Hon. Gopi Nath and Hon. V. K. Mehrotra, JJ.

5. Although, at the initial moving of the writ petition the vires of the aforesaid rule, with regard to the dispensing with the services of a permanent employee was not challenged by the petitioner, but subsequently, by an amendment application by the vires of the rule, with regard to the aforesaid provision was challenged,

6. It is relevant to point out the decision of Calcutta High Court, in the case of Gaur Chandra Sarkar v. West Bengal State Electricity Board, 89 CWN 474 : 1985 CHN 294, whereby a Division Bench, consisting of Honble M. M. Dutta, J. and my Brother (Paritosh K. Mukhetjee, J.) took view that Regulation 34 of West Bengal State Electricity Board Regulation, which contains similar provision to dispense the services of a permanent employee, has been declared arbitrary and as such ultra vires, violative of provisions of Article H of the Constitution of India.

7. The aforesaid view was also affirmed by Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh, AIR 1985 SC 722, by Hon. O. Chinnappa Roddy, Hon. E. S. Venkataramaiah and Hon. R. B. Misra, JJ.

8. An extract of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh, (supra) is being quoted herein below :

"we are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the Board. On the fact of it, the regulation is totally arbi trary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination. It is a naked hire and fire rule, the time for banishing which altogether from employer- employee relationship is fast approaching. Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII class so familiar to administrative lawyers. In Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600, Rules 148 (3) and 149 (3) of the Indian Railway Establish ment Code were challenged on the ground that they were contrary to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The challenge was upheld though no opinion was expressed on the question whether the rule offended Article 14 of the Constitution. Since then Article 14 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court and conferment and exercis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document