Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.6 It was,therefore, urged that the present petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Mankad, appearing for Respondent No.1 strongly opposed this petition and contended that, while passing the order of dismissal, the petitioners only stated that Respondent No.1 committed the breach of multiple section of the Employees' Standard Code, which every employee is expected to follow.

"This letter is to inform you that since you have violated multiple sections of the Employee Standard Code which every employee is expected to follow and as a result of your actions for past several years and as recommended by our Management, your have been dismissed from services with immediate effect."

6.3 Thus, while passing the order of dismissal, the petitioners have not stated anything about any willful omission or negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 by which the damage, i.e. financial or otherwise, is alleged to be caused to the petitioners. In fact, what is stated in the letter of dismissal is that Respondent No.1 has violated multiple sections of the Employees' Standard Code, which every employee is expected to follow. Thus, there is no mention of either financial or any other damage caused to the petitioners on account of the alleged misconduct or illegalities committed by Respondent No.1 and the order of dismissal is totally silent on these aspects.