THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22456 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a ﬁnancial consultant and advisor by Sri Venkateswara Bhakti Channel, the third respondent herein, which is part of the organization of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, through proceedings, dated 12.02.2008. The term of engagement was three years with liberty to either party to terminate engagement, by giving notice of three months. Through a letter, dated 14.06.2008, the third respondent terminated the engagement of the petitioner by oﬀering remuneration for three months in lieu of notice. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination was mala ﬁde in nature and it was resorted to only because the petitioner pointed out certain ﬁnancial irregularities in the third respondent organization. He has referred to some correspondence that ensued in this regard. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 took notice at the stage of admission and submits that it is the petitioner, who has invited the termination. He further submits that even according to the letter, dated 26.05.2008, addressed by the petitioner, certain things, which do not beﬁt either the organization or the petitioner, have been brought into existence. He contends that the termination is strictly in accordance with the terms of engagement and no exception can be taken to it. The petitioner was engaged for a term of three years as a ﬁnancial consultant and advisor by the third respondent. Had the term been fixed, totally different things would have ensued. It is suﬃxed with a clause enabling either party to terminate the same by giving notice of three months. The third respondent had invoked the clause. In the impugned proceedings, nothing adverse is pointed out against the petitioner. It is true that the Supreme in CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED v BROJO NATH [1], held that the termination of contract by issuing notice or oﬀering salary in lieu of notice is subject to judicial review and in a given case, it can even be set aside if it is found to be punitive. However, necessary factual grounds must exist therefor. In the instant case, though there existed ample material for the respondents to point out the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner, they have advisedly not chosen to do so. On the other hand, it is the petitioner, who has placed before this Court certain material and the same can be examined. For instance, in his letter, dated 26.05.2008, he had mentioned the names of every important person in the organization and alleged that he was manhandled there. It was mentioned that every ugly scene was created in a meeting of highly placed oﬃcials. Secondly, the petitioner, in a way, had exhibited his over enthusiasm by getting issued a notice, dated 19.06.2008, after termination, alleging certain irregularities in the organization. The conduct of the petitioner, in resorting to such acts, cannot be appreciated. At any rate, the impugned proceedings do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.10.2008. kdl [1] AIR 1986 SC 1571