M. Gopalakrishnaiah vs Union Of India on 10 May, 1994
(17) In M/s. Indian Rly. Construction Company Ltd. and others Vs. Lt Col. A. K. Dogra (Retd), the question was whether appellant could terminate the services of the respondent before his term of appointment expired without assigning any reason.It was in pursuance of an advertisement the respondent, who was serving as Lt. Col. in the Indian Army, applied for the post of Chief Project Manager under the control of the appellant and this post of Chief Project Manager was offered to the respondent for a period of two years.The letter of appointment said that the appointment to the post was purely on contract basis and would be for a period of five years terminable any time without notice without assigning any reason therefore. However, before the completion of the full term the services to the respondent were terminated without assigning any reason The court held that it was well settled that executive action must be in formed by reason and must not be arbitrary as arbitrariness was opposed to the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held where the appointment was the result of a contract between the parties and one of the parties was an instrumentality of the State, the tenure of an employee could not be cut short or brought to an end arbitrarily at the whims and caprice of the employer before the expiry of the period of his contract, and that there must exist adequate reason for bringing to an end the services of an employee before the contractual period expired.The court also dismissed an argument of the appellant that there were some complaints against the respondent, and said that this argument was of no avail to the appellant as it was not disputed that no enquiry whatsoever was held against the respondent, and that if the order terminating the services of the respondent was founded on complaints and charges against him then in that event his services could not be dispensed with without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him in regard thereto.The court, therefore, held that the services of the respondent were terminated illegally before the stipulated period came to an end.