Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsatisfactory performance in Kalpesh S. Mandlik And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Maha. Rail ... on 28 August, 2024Matching Fragments
6. Mr. Kinkhede, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn our attention to clause No.10 of the appointment letters and argued that respondent No.1 could terminate the services of the 5 wp2484.2024.odt petitioners on the ground of 'indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct, unsatisfactory performance or breach of any terms and conditions of the appointment letter', else they were not empowered to terminate the services before completion of the contractual period. He has also taken us through the termination order and canvased that no reason has been assigned to the termination order; therefore, issuance of an impugned termination order is illegal and bad in law. Consequently, he urged to quash and set aside the impugned notices.
"10. MRIDC reserves the right to terminate your services at any time on the grounds of indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct, unsatisfactory performance or breach of the terms and conditions of this letter by giving one month's notice or without any notice on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice".
14. A perusal of clause 10 reveals that respondent No.1 has the right to terminate the petitioners' services at any time on the grounds of indiscipline, subordination, misconduct, unsatisfactory performance or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the 9 wp2484.2024.odt appointment letter only. However, in the impugned termination notices/orders, respondent No.1 has not assigned any reason for the termination of services of the petitioners but only mentioned that in terms of clause 10 of the letter, their services have been terminated. In fact, as per clause No. 10, the right to terminate the petitioners' services by respondent No.1 has accrued only after violation of the conditions/terms mentioned therein. However, without assigning any grounds/reasons or giving an opportunity for a hearing, the petitioners' services have been terminated before the completion of the contractual period. Hence, in our opinion, the issuance of the said notices is illegal and bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.