- (1.) HAVING been appointed as a Litigation Officer in the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter the Corporation), the petitioner came to be terminated from the said employment by the impugned order which resdinded the appointment order issued by Managing Director of the Corporation on 23rd April 1993, was passed by the Chairman of the Corporation on 28 -4 -1993.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that being a law graduate, having seven years experience as an Advocate he applied to the Corporation for being appointed as the head of its legal cell as it is had a good number of cases for and against it in various courts. On consideration of the application the Managing Director of the Corporation vide order no. MD/ PS/CJ/ JKSRTC/1969 -75, dated 23 -4 -93 not only appointed him but also appointed one Sh. Pir Seth of Jammu as a Litigation Officer for Kashmir and Jammu divisions respectively. The pay scale being Rs. 1825 -3250.
(3.) IT is claimed that in -pursuance to this letter of appointment the petitioner joined the Corporation as such Litigation Officer on 23rd of April, 1993 vide the joining report to the respondent no. 3 which was endorsed by the Manager (Administration) of the Corporation. Respondent no. 3 is said to have issued as the Chairman of the Corporation, the impugned order whereby he rescinded the petitioners order of appointment. While the order impugned is taken as the order of termination from service, its validity is assailed on the grounds of its being un -lawful and unconstitutional, having been passed without adherence to the legal and statutory provisions as no chance of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the order was recorded which has had the effect of awarding the major punishment of determination from service without even the principles of natural justice having been complied with. The impugned order is labelled as arbitrary as no material was available or had been put forth before the Chairman to pass it. It is pleaded that the Chairman could be only the Minister -in -charge of the department, so also the impugned order issued by respondent no. 3 is without jurisdiction. ¢" ";