AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant was engaged purely on temporary basis in the Indian Embassy at Washington DC, America on various occasions. Last of such appointment was through Office Order dated 09.02.2005 for a period of 89 days as a Junior Clerk on a fixed pay of 880 US$ per month. Through an order dated 30.05.2006, the applicant was informed that his services shall stand terminated on grounds of gross misconduct with effect from the afternoon of 13.06.2006. The same is challenged in this TA.
The applicant contends that he held different positions in the Embassy for a long time and that the removal, without conducting inquiry is contrary to law. He mentioned various events that are said to have taken place in the Embassy.
The respondents filed the counter affidavit objecting to the very maintainability of the TA. According to them the applicant is an American citizen and the TA cannot be maintained. It is further stated that the applicant was engaged till 08.02.2005 as Contingency Paid Messenger and as Junior Clerk only w.e.f. 09.02.2005. The impugned order is sought to be supported by stating that the applicant was put on notice of one month and that no illegality has taken place.
We heard Shri P.V. Yogeswaran and Shri Ashish Updhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
A serious objection is raised as to the maintainability of the TA on the ground that the applicant is not an Indian citizen. Though the applicant filed a copy of Indian Passport, the respondents states that there was no renewal thereof beyond 2007. We do not intend to go deep into this aspect.
The order of appointment in respect of the applicant reads as under:-
"Mr. J.G. Wilson is hereby appointed as Jr. Clerk paid from contingencies in this Mission for the period of eighty nine days with effect from the forenoon of February, 09, 2005 at a fixed pay of $880.00 (US $ eight hundred and eighty dollars only) per month. The expenditure will be debited to the allotted Air Wing budget. Further extension will be contingent upon approval from Air Headquarters."
From this, it is clear that the appointment was for a period of 89 days and that the expenditure was borne out of the contingency fund. This arrangement appears to have continued for about one year and through office order dated 30.05.2006, the applicant was put on notice that his engagement stands terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2006. The said order reads as under:-
"It is hereby notified that the services of Mr. J.G. Wilson, Jr. Clerk, will stand terminated on the grounds of gross misconduct w.e.f. the afternoon of June 30, 2006."
The necessity for the respondents to conduct a disciplinary inquiry would have arisen if only the applicant held any substantive position or the appointment was against a regular vacancy. The order of appointment itself suggests that it was just for a period of 89 days. Though it was extended beyond that time, the record does not disclose the nature of order that came to be passed after the expiry of the initial 89 days.
Be that as it may, the respondents have put the applicant on notice of one month as regards his termination. It accords with the general principles of retrenchment, contained in the Indian law. The applicant is not able to demonstrate as to what provision of law was violated in the context of the impugned order.
We do not find any merit in the TA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.