1969 (3) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order of dismissal was illegal due to lack of notice and inquiry into alleged misconduct.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the appellate order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962 was defective in law.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was whether the order of dismissal of the appellant was illegal due to the absence of notice and inquiry into alleged misconduct. The appellant contended that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice as no notice of the allegation was given, and no inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 4. However, the Supreme Court held that the order of dismissal was made in accordance with the terms of the contract of service. The letter of appointment clearly stated that the company had the right to terminate the service without notice in case of misconduct, negligence, or disobedience of superiors. The Court found that the removal of the appellant was not punitive but was a simple discharge under the terms of the contract, and thus, no violation of natural justice occurred.

2. The appellant sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of dismissal. The Court acknowledged that even if there was an assumption of illegality in the dismissal order, the appellant was not entitled to relief under Article 226. This was because the appellant had the right to appeal to the State Government, as per the Orissa Welfare Officers' Rules. The State Government had heard the appeal and dismissed it, making its decision final and binding. Therefore, the original decision of dismissal had merged with the appellate decision, and unless the appellant could prove defects in the appellate decision, no relief could be granted under Article 226.

3. The final issue revolved around whether the appellate order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962 was defective in law. The appellant argued that non-disclosure of names of supervisory staff was not a duty under the rules. However, the Court held that the contractual terms of employment imposed additional obligations on the appellant beyond the rules. The appellate authority found evidence supporting the dismissal and concluded that there was no error of jurisdiction. The High Court could only interfere if there was a jurisdictional error or a legal defect in the appellate decision, which was not shown in this case. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had not made a case for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.