G.R. Majithia, J - (1.) The petitioner has impugned the notice dated November 23, 1984 informing him that his services will stand terminated on the expiry of one month after the receipt of the same in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
(2.) Facts first : The petitioner was appointed as a Chemist by respondent No. I by order dated July 21, 1982. Respondent No. I had started Masala Plant, it required Standard Trade Mark, namely, Agmark for the supply and disposal of Ground Spices in the open market. It applied to the Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India for obtaining the grade designation mark for Ground Spices. Respondent No.1 was required to get the Chemist trained from the institution established for such training by the Agricultural Adviser to the i Government of India. The petitioner was sent for such training and on completion of the same, the Marketing Adviser to the Government of India issued letter dated February 26, 1983 granting approval and permitted the petitioner to take up the work relating to analysis, grading and marking of Ground Spices under Agmark in accordance with the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 and the rules made thereunder and the instructions issued thereunder from time to time by the Agricultural Adviser to the Government of India. The petitioner as Chemist Incharge was responsible for safe custody of labels, replica, maintenance of label account and label charges account and submission of regular monthly returns etc. The petitioner's duty for approving the Ground Speices was very sacrosanct as it laid the responsibility on him to test the purity of the Ground Spices as it is needed for human consumption. Once approval is granted, the label Agmark would be put on the article prepared by the Masala Plant. Shri J.P. Bhardwaj, Divisional Manager of respondent No. 1 desired fictitius approval to be accorded of Ground Spices. The petition, refused to oblige him. One month notice on the expiry of Which the petitioner's services were to stand terminated was apparently issued because he refused to fictitious approval to the desired quantity of ground spices at the asking of the Divisional Manager.
(3.) The writ petition came up for motion hearing on February 4, 1985 and notice of motion was issued to the respondents for February 20, 1985. On that date, the counsel for the respondents sought time to file reply and the writ petition stood adjourned to March 20, 1985. On the adjourned date, the counsel for the respondents prayed for more time to file reply and the adjournment was granted on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs and the petition stood adjourned to April 22, 1985. On that date too, adjournment was sought for filing written statement. The adjournment was granted on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs and the case stood adjourned to July 16, 1985. On that date, the counsel for the respondent stated at the bar that for the purpose of motion hearing of the writ petition, it was not necessary to file written statement. The Bench after hearing the counsel for the parties admitted the writ petition to hearing. No written statement was filed in this case. The defence of the respondents is struck down under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') (added in Punjab by High Court amends; ?The factual averments made in the writ petition have to be treated as correct.;