THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1500 OF 2010 Dated: 29.01.2010 Between: Mr. Rajendra Chingaravelu … Petitioner And Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.., Rep. by its Sire HR Director, Plot No.42, Hitec City Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1500 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the respondent Company terminating the services of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the same awarding monetary compensation to the petitioner for loss of pay and reputation. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person. The material on record shows that the petitioner was appointed as the Director–I.T. in the respondent Company by letter of appointment dated 30.06.2009. It is stated that the petitioner joined the services on 06.07.2009. While so, on 28.12.2009 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending investigation into an allegation made by the Security Head of the respondent Company with regard to an incident that occurred on 28.12.2009. Subsequently, by show-cause notice dated 31.12.2009 issued by the respondent, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why his services should not be terminated for the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct Policy of the respondent Company. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter the impugned order dated 06.01.2010 came to be passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The said action of the respondents is assailed in this writ petition contending that the termination of the petitioner’s services on account of the alleged off duty conduct beyond the workplace does not come under the ambit of the respondent Company’s Code of Conduct Policy and at any rate the impugned termination without conducting due enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner to contradict the allegations is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the respondent Company, whose action is challenged in this writ petition, is a mere company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is not disputed before this Court that the respondent is not a Government Company nor it is created by any Statute. In the circumstances, it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondent Company in terminating the services of the petitioner does not offend any public function nor any public element is involved. In the circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere, but it is not open to him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.01.2010 Ivd