Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is questioned by the appellants. High Court held that the termination of services of respondent by order dated 8-1-1991 was illegal.
(2.) The basic facts in a nutshell are as under : The respondent-employee was at the relevant point of time working as a medical representative of appellant No. 1 - company which undisputedly is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). He was transferred from Delhi to Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh by order dated 17-6-1989. Alleging that the respondent-employee had not joined the transferred post a charge-sheet was issued on 27-9-1989. There was another set of charges and the charge-sheet was issued on 12-12-1989. While these two charges were pending consideration in departmental proceedings, action in terms of Rule 30-A of the Industrial Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (in short the Rules) was taken. A show-cause notice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why his services shall not be terminated on account of unauthorized absence from duty exceeding 30 days. Rule 30-A was introduced by way of an amendment w.e.f. 30th March, 1990 on the basis of a decision taken by the Board of Directors on 24-4-1990. On receipt of the show cause notice the respondent-employee took the stand that he had already been charge-sheeted and enquiry was going on and, therefore, the employer cannot be permitted to turn around and by-pass the enquiry and take action on the basis of alleged amended Rule 30-A. Company has realized that it cannot prove the charges in the enquiry and, therefore, the enquiry was being by-passed. He wanted a copy of the approval of the Board of Directors for amending the Rule 30-A as done on 30-3-1990. The order of termination was passed keeping in view the unauthorized absence and unsatisfactory reply to the show cause notice. The Screening Committee after assessing the materials on record came to the conclusion that the services of the respondent were to be terminated with immediate effect under Rule 30-A.
(3.) The order of termination was questioned by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Validity of amended Rule 30-A was challenged in addition to taking the stand that the authorities have found it inconvenient to establish the earlier charge and, therefore, have by-passed them and taken resort to amended Rule 30-A with mala fide intents. Present appellants rebutted the stand and supported the action impugned in the order.;