M.H.S.Ansari, J. - (1.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by the State Fisheries Development Corporation, respondent herein (for short Corporation) as its company Secretary by appointment letter dated December 26/29, 1988. The appointment was temporary and petitioner was on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment, which may be extended, depending on performance and efficiency. The appointment was terminable during the probationary period if the petitioner's performance was not found to be satisfactory.
(2.) The service of the petitioner for confirmation became due on January 12, 1990 and a proposal was placed before the Board for confirmation. However, by letter dated May 30, 1990, petitioner was informed as under; The Board of Directors in its 118th meeting held on 15th February, 1990 considered your case and decided to extend your probation period for another 6 months subject to review of your performance after 3 months. But even during this extended period of probation under this Corporation your performance has not improved rather it has been found to be completely unsatisfactory. Whereas it appears that your performance as Secretary to this corporation is not satisfactory and your service as Secretary is no longer required by this Corporation. Under clause 19 (c) your services are liable to be terminated by 3 months' notice by either party without assigning any reason, the Corporation always retaining the right of giving your 3 months' pay in lieu of 3 months' notice. After giving you a personal hearing by the Board of Directors it has been resolved in the 121st Board meeting held today i.e. 30th May, 1990 (afternoon) and you are being paid 3 months' pay by cheque No. 663009 dated 30.5.90 drawn on State Bank of India, Bikash Bhawan (G.O.C) Calcutta for Rs.10,889-10. Your pay for the month of May upto 30.5.90 for Rs.3,212.35 is being disbursed in cash.?
(3.) The petitioner was directed to hand over charge. Cheque for the amount stated in the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner. Petitioner has questioned the said order of termination in the instant writ application. For the said reason, the petitioner did not encash the said cheque.;