IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1215 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology, Gurgaon and others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON' HON' HON' HON'BLE M BLE M BLE M BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology, Gurgaon and its officers have preferred the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging judgment dated 27.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 30.4.2011 (P-4), passed by the Appellate Authority- cum-Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. 2. In pursuance of direction issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Karnataka and others Karnataka and others Karnataka and others Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , (2002) 8 SCC 481 , (2002) 8 SCC 481 , (2002) 8 SCC 481, the respondent State of Haryana issued a notification dated 8.9.2005, setting up the appellate forum conferring the powers to hear appeals of employees of aided/un-aided technical institutes who have been LPA No. 1215 of 2011 (O&M) 2 subjected to punishment or whose services have been terminated. The District and Session Judges or Additional District and Sessions Judges were to function as appellate forum till the Tribunals were set up. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid notification that the order of termination passed by the appellants on 8.2.2011 (P-3) was challenged by Shri Naresh Bhatotia-respondent No. 2 before the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and the same has been set aside on the ground that neither any show cause notice was served on respondent No. 2 - an employee of the appellant-Management nor any reasons have been cited. 3. It is appropriate to mention that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Accounts-cum-Office Clerk on 8.9.2000 (P-1) and he was given promotion/appointment on the post of Accounts Assistant on 30.7.2001 (P-2). On 8.2.2011 (P-3), his services were terminated as per terms and conditions of his letter of appointment. The letter of termination has been set aside by the Appellate Authority-cum- Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated 30.4.2011 (P-4), holding that no rule could arm the appellant-Management to resort to terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving him one month notice. The learned Single Judge also upheld the view taken by the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge. In fact, before the learned Single Judge also it was conceded that no notice was ever served to respondent No. 2 before terminating his service. Even the learned Single Judge has refrained himself from opining on the prayer made by the appellant-Management regarding liberty to proceed against respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and LPA No. 1215 of 2011 (O&M) 3 perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the judgment dated 27.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge and that of order dated 30.4.2011 (P-4), warranting admission of the instant appeal. The Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge has passed a reasoned order after citing various judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is appropriate to mention that in Central Inland Water Transport Central Inland Water Transport Central Inland Water Transport Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Corporation Ltd. Corporation Ltd. Corporation Ltd. v. v. v. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly Brojo Nath Ganguly Brojo Nath Ganguly Brojo Nath Ganguly, 1986 (2) SLR 345 , 1986 (2) SLR 345 , 1986 (2) SLR 345 , 1986 (2) SLR 345, where a clause in the Rules of the Company authorising the management to terminate the service of a permanent employee by giving him three months’ notice, was declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, no exception is provided warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) July July July July 22 22 22 22, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor