Sudhanshu Shekhar Ganguly, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 3.4.84 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 3020(W) of 1984, which was initiated by the respondents no. 1, Lt. Col. Dipankar Bhattacharya against the Indian Iron & Steel Company, several of its authorities (Appellants Nos. 1 3 and respondents Nos. 2 and 3), the Steel Authority of India and the Union of India (respondents nos. 4 and 5). Admittedly the respondent no. 1 (respondent henceforward) while serving in the Army resigned his post and joined the Appellant Co. (Appellant henceforward) as a Probationer Deputy Chief Security Officer on or about 1.4.82. As per the terms of his appointment, the period of probation was twelve months which as per the Personnel Policy Circular no. 22 Hated 14/9/81 (vide Rule 7:2) was extendable not more than once by a period not exceeding the initial probationary period. After the expiry of 15 months, by a Memo dated 13.3.83 from the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (respondent no. 3) the respondent's period of probation was extended by six months upto 30/9/8 3 with retrospective effect from 1/4/83. The respondent's service was terminated by an order dated 30/9/83. The respondent appealed to the General Manager and is His appeal proved fruitless, he moved the Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the writ petition, the case of the respondent appears to be the following:
(2.) When the respondent joined: the appellant concern as Deputy Chief Security Officer, Major P.J.N. Rana one of his colleagues (respondent no. 21 did not like his appointment since in the Army, major Rana was lower in rank to him and he feared that the respondent weald supersede him to the promotional post of Additional Chief Security Officer, by virtue of Irs seniority in the Army. From the very start, Major Rama was ironically disposed towards him and he tried to make things as difficult for him as possible and by malicious" mis -representation, vitiated: he attitude of the authorities against him. Several such instances were cited in the writ petition, which have been mentioned by the learned Judge in para 4 of his judgment. The respondent effected various improvements to the working the Security Department during his short stay with the appellant concern and this was not also looked upon favourably by Major Rana and the order of termination was issued by the respondent no. 3 at the instance of respondent no. 2.
(3.) In view of the terms of the Personnel Policy Circular, the respondent became confirmed automatically, since his period of probation was not extended within one month of the expiry of the in first year of probation (vide Rule 6.4). While extending his period of probation, he was never informed what were his deficiencies which required to be corrected The order of termination also besides complaining of lis services being unsatisfactory did not spell out wherein he was found wanting. On a representation of the I. I. SCO Officer Association, Kulti Unit to the Managing Director regarding the termination of his services, the latter made for the first time -on 1/10/33 detain allegations which came within the purview of misconduct and subordination. These allegations were not brought to the knowledge of the respondent as required by Rule 5.4 of the appellant's Company's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. 1977. The order of termination which was actually a punitive dismissal with stigma and passed without any enquiry after giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself was a colourable exercise of power and in gross violation of the principles of natura justice and hence arbitrary, mala fide and illegal. In the circumstances stated, the respondent prayed for a direction the appellants to cannot the order of termination and retrace all steps taken in consequence thereof.;