Dilip K.Basu, J. - (1.) - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated December 16, 1985, passed by a learned Trial Judge in Civil Order No.9879 (W) of 1984, in which the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Order of termination, dated 8th June, 1984, passed by the Chairman, Calcutta State Transport Corporation.
(2.) Petitioner in the writ petition, (respondent in this appeal), moved writ application, challenging the impugned Order, which is annexure F to the writ. petition, dated 8th June, 1984, by which service of the petitioner, in the post of Deputy Director of Operation), under Calcutta State Transport Corporation, was terminated with effect from the forenoon of 11-6-1984.
(3.) Petitioner/respondent was appointed as Deputy Director of Operation in terms of the appointment letter issued on 24th August, 1982, on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining, at the first instance, on the specific term "You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of your joining and your confirmation to the said post shall depend on your satisfactory performance during the period of probation and on your being found suitable for the post in all respects. The period of probation may at the discretion of the authority, be terminated or extended if be found to be so necessary". On 15th November, 1982, the petitioner, joined the said post, and after expiry of one year, i.e., on 15th November, 1983, was awarded an increment. On 19th May, 1984, the Chairman of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CSTC), informed the petitioner that the period of probation was extended till 14th November, 1984, in terms of Clause 2 of the letter of appointment read with Section 17 of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Regulations). On 8th June, 1984, the petitioner/respondents was directed by the Chairman of CSTC not to attend the office with effect from 9th June, 1984, without giving any reason and also without giving any written intimation. On 9th June, 1984, petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, challenging the legality of the said verbal Order, dated 8th June, 1984 and requested the Chairman, to withdraw the said verbal Order as well as Memo., dated 19th May, 1984, purporting to deconfirm the petitioner inasmuch as, according to Section 17 A of CSTC Employees Service Regulation read with Clause 2 of the appointment letter, the petitioner should be deemed to be a permanent employee with effect from 15th December, 1983. The petitioner/respondent applied for leave on 11th June, 1984, for 9 days, i.e., from l1th June to 20th June, 1984. Only on 18th June, 1984, the petitioner respondent was served with an Order of termination passed and signed by the Chairman, CSTC, dated 8th June, 1984, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Trial Court.;