$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 03^rd February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 5204/2011 AMIT SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.

versus THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Mr. Kaustubh Sinha and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner laying a challenge to impugned order dated 16.12.2010 terminating the services of the Petitioner. Writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to Respondent No.1/The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (‘ICAI’) to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits as a confirmed employee.

2. Case of the Petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that Petitioner joined ICAI on 19.03.2008 as a Guest Faculty Member for imparting Information Technology Training to students studying Chartered Accountancy. On 23.06.2008, due to outstanding performance of the Petitioner, ICAI offered him appointment vide appointment letter dated 23.06.2008 against a permanent post of Executive Officer and Petitioner joined w.e.f. 30.06.2008 on probation for a period of one year, extendable by a period or periods at the discretion of the Management.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5204/2011 Page 1 of 24

3. It is averred that one year of probation period ended on 30.06.2009 but no letter was issued extending the probation period. During the probation period, no memo/warning was issued to the Petitioner regarding his performance. Petitioner’s ACR for the year 2008-09 did not contain any adverse remark against the Petitioner and it was recorded that his performance as faculty was satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work from 01.07.2009 to 16.12.2010 as Executive Officer to the satisfaction of the superiors and as recorded in his ACR for the year 2009-10, his performance was ‘Good’ and he was properly imparting ITT Training to the students.

4. It is further averred that during the probation period, Petitioner served ICAI at various places and in different capacities such as Executive Officer at ITT Lab, Pitampura; Centre In-charge, ITT Lab, Vishwas Nagar; Faculty, ITT Lab, Pitampura, etc. Despite satisfactory performance, services of the Petitioner were abruptly dispensed with in an illegal manner by a non-speaking order dated 16.12.2010 and that too, without assigning any reason, under Clause 4 of the appointment letter. Petitioner made a representation on 21.01.2011 to the President of ICAI but to no avail and Petitioner approached this Court.

5. At the outset, it needs to be noted that Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioner had categorically stated that the Petitioner is not calling upon the Court to either rule on the question whether there is ‘deemed confirmation’ in law or whether Petitioner was suitable or unsuitable for being confirmed and the only contention of the Petitioner is that exercise of power to terminate the services of the Petitioner in terms of Clause 4 of the appointment letter is mala fide and abuse of power with ulterior motive to punish the Petitioner for annoying some officers and this is substantiated by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5204/2011 Page 2 of 24 the record. The argument is that the ACRs of the Petitioner for the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10 reflect that Petitioner’s work was satisfactory and he was doing well which is reflected from the ACRs of the two years in question and in fact, Respondent No.3/Sh. H.K. Jain and Respondent No.2/Mrs. Indu Arora themselves gave a good report on the performance of the Petitioner in the ACR for the year 2009-10.

6. It is urged that there is a backdrop to the illegal termination order. One Sh. Jitendra Singh, Senior Executive Officer, sent an e-mail dated 08.09.2010 to Sh. H.K. Jain with a copy to Mrs. Indu Arora, pointing out that no bills were being submitted for utilisation of 90% of