Grover , J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court affirming the decision of a learned single Judge rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order passed by the respondent Institute on April 26, 1963 which had the effect of terminating his services.
(2.) The appellant had a distinguished academic career. After passing the Master's degree in Organic Chemistry from the Lucknow University he obtained a Doctorate from the Royal School of Mining of the University of London. He got a Post Graduate Diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. He worked for sometime and was employed successively in some of the Universities in the United States of America. Since the year 1960 the appellant had been making efforts to get employment in the respondent Institute. This Institute is one of the four Institutes of Science and Technology which have been declared to be institutions of national importance. It has a Board of Governs the Chairman and Members of which are distinguished educationists, scientists and teachers. By a letter dated January 8, 1962 the appellant was offered the post of the Assistant Professor of Extractive Metallurgy at the Institute. Condition No.2 was as follows: "The post is permanent. Your appointment however is made on probation for a period of one year. Subject to satisfactory completion of probation you will be confirmed in the post. During the period of probation your services may be terminated by one month's notice on either side." This offer was accepted by the appellant. By a resolution of the Board of Governors dated March 1, 1962 the action of the Chairman in according approval to the appointment of the appellant was confirmed. The appellant joined the staff of the Institute on May 23, 1962.
(3.) It is somewhat unfortunate that a distinguished scientist of the calibre of the appellant did not commence his career in a happy manner. It appears that he had executed a bond to serve the Kerala University. According to the Institute this fact was never disclosed by him. It has been noticed in the judgment of the High Court that according to the statement of the Director of the Institute in his affidavit to which no exception was taken by the appellant in his reply the latter adopted an attitude questioning the Rules and Regulations of the Institute as well as every order made by the superior authorities; he even threatened legal proceedings at every stage. In spite of that on January 31, 1963 the Director gave an assurance to the appellant that he did not want members of the staff to quit the Institute on differences of opinion on matters which were completely non-academic. On March 21, 1963 a report on the work done by the appellant was called for with a view to placing it before the Board of Governors. That report was submitted by the appellant. A meeting of the Board of Governors was held on April 15, 1963. Item 27 of the agenda of that meeting related to the consideration of certain representations made by the appellant. The Board rejected the appeal against the decision of the Director in the matter of allotment of a C type quarter. It also confirmed the Director's decision that the application submitted by the appellant for a post in the Benaras Hindu University be withheld. The Board made a note of the fact that there was no provision in the Institute Medical Attendance Rules for charges of X-ray done in a private Radiological Institute and reimbursement of charges relating to taxi hire incurred by the appellant in taking his wife to and from the hospital in the absence of a certificate from the authorised medical attendant. Item 28 related to the question of the satisfactory completion of probation of Assistant Professors and their confirmation. It was recorded that the Board had come to know for the find time that while the appellant had executed a bond to serve the Kerala University he did not disclose that fact when he applied to the Institute. This in the opinion of the Board, was "serious transgression of well known convention and official etiquette". The Board, after considering all the aspects and perusing the confidential reports by the Head of the Department in respect of the work of the appellant, came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable in the interest of the Institute to retain the services of the appellant. It was therefore, resolved that his service be terminated with a month's notice. The Secretary of the Board of Governors thereafter sent a letter to the appellant dated April 23, 1963 informing him that the Board had decided to terminate his services and a month's notice was being given to him in view of clause 2 of the order of appointment.;