G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant holding that no exception could be taken to the order passed by Respondent No. 1 relieving him from the services of the Corporation with effect from January 2, 1984 (after -noon).
(2.) THE facts first: The Appellant joined as a Clerk Grade II in All India Radio Hyderabad on August 21. 1970 and was confirmed on April 21, 1975. He was promoted as Clerk Grade I on ad hoc at Hyderabad Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra, Hyderabad on March 27, 1981 The All India Radio and the Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra, Hyderabad are two units of the same department under the over -all control of the same authority. The appointment of the Appellant as Clerk Grade I was regularised on September 2, 1982. The Respondent No 1 advertised inviting applications for the post of typist reserved for a physically handicapped person. The Appellant being physically handicapped applied for the post and was selected He was relieved by Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra Hyderabad on October 1. 1982 and in the relieving order it was provided that since the Appellant holds substantive post of Clerk Grade II in All India Radio at Vijayawara he would continue to hold his lien on the post for a period of two years ending September 30, 1984 The Appellant joined Respondent No. 1 at Chandigarh on October 5, 1982 as typist -clerk on probation for one year. On December 1. 1983 Respondent No. 1 intimated the Appellant that he had not got his lien terminated with his previous employer viz. Director Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra, Hyderabad /All India Radio, Vijayawara and a warning was issued that if he did not get his lien terminated with his previous employer by December 15, 1983, he would not be allowed to continue in service. The Appellant made request to the Director, Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra, Hyderabad for terminating his lien and also intimated Respondent No. 1 that he had requested his previous employer for terminating his lien forthwith. On December 16, 1983 Respondent No. 1 again wrote to the Appellant that he had not so far got his lien terminated with his previous employer and a final warning was given to him that if he did not get his lien terminated and gave a proof of the same to it by December 31, 1983, it would not be possible for them to continue the Appellant in service. The Appellant did not succeed in getting the Hen cancelled. Resultantly on January 2, 1984 Respondent No. 1 passed the following order: Since it has not been possible for you to get your lien discontinued from your previous employers, you are hereby relieved from the services of the Corporation w. e f. the 2nd January, 1984 (A. N). It is this order which has been challenged in the writ petition. Respondent No, 1 justified the order on the ground that it had information that the previous employer of the Appellant was unwilling to terminate the lien as some disciplinary proceedings were pending against him on charge of misappropriation of Government fund. It was pleaded that the Appellant's appointment was specifically on the condition that he would receive from his original department the relieving letter and resign from the previous service.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that it is difficult to issue a mandamus to the Director. Upgrah Door Darshan Kendra, Hyderabad to terminate the lien of the Appellant since it is open to the competent authority to start disciplinary proceedings against him. At this juncture it will be useful to reproduce the observations of the learned Single Judge in this behalf which are as under: The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has laid great stress on the order of Director -General dated April 25, 1984 directing that disciplinary proceedings against four persons also named in the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, other than the Petitioner, shall be taken in common proceedings. The arguments proceeds that it should be inferred from P.16 that the competent authority had decided not to initiate departmental proceedings against the Petitioner. The contention is without merit No such inference favourable for the Petitioner can be raised from the order P.16. Assuming that the disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the Petitioner so far because of his appointment in the Indian Oil Corporation, it is still open for the competent authority to start such proceedings against him Under theses circumstances, it is difficult to issue a mandamus against Respondent No. 3 to terminate the lien of the Petitioner. The Petitioner continues to hold his lien in the All India Radio at Hyderabad who have not agreed to terminate it on account of the disciplinary proceedings against him. In this background, the Petitioner cannot justifiably assail the communication P 12 terminating his services by the Indian Oil Corporation authorities.;