Contractual termination and limited writ review after statutory appeal: removal upheld without inquiry, and Article 226 relief was unavailable.

An express contractual power to terminate employment without assigning reasons, on notice or salary in lieu of notice, was treated as a valid discharge clause rather than a punitive dismissal, because no finding of misconduct formed the basis of the removal. The absence of a prior notice or domestic inquiry therefore did not invalidate the termination on natural justice grounds. The text also notes that where a statutory appeal lies and is decided by the State Government, the appellate order becomes the operative order for writ review, and the High Court may interfere only for jurisdictional error, apparent legal error, or similar infirmity, not by reappreciating evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the employee's removal was punitive so as to require prior notice and inquiry under the principles of natural justice; (ii) whether, after dismissal of the statutory appeal, the High Court could grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the employee's removal was punitive so as to require prior notice and inquiry under the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The service letter conferred a contractual right on the employer to terminate the engagement without assigning reasons on giving notice or salary in lieu of notice, while reserving a separate power of summary dismissal for misconduct. The order of removal was treated as one passed under the contractual termination clause, and no finding of misconduct was recorded as the basis of the order. On that footing, the removal was not punitive in character and did not attract a mandatory notice or domestic inquiry requirement.

Conclusion: The removal was not invalid for want of notice or inquiry, and the challenge based on breach of natural justice failed.

Issue (ii): whether, after dismissal of the statutory appeal, the High Court could grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The service rules provided a statutory appeal to the State Government, whose decision was final and binding. Once the appeal was heard and dismissed, the original order merged in the appellate decision, and the operative order for judicial review was the appellate order. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court could interfere only for jurisdictional error, error of law apparent on the face of the record, or similar legal infirmity, and not by reappreciating evidence where some evidence supported the appellate authority's conclusion. No such defect in the appellate order was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged, and no relief could be granted under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the termination was upheld as a valid contractual discharge and, in any event, the appellate decision of the State Government was not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity warranting writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A termination made under an express contractual power to discharge without assigning reasons is not punitive merely because it is prompted by alleged misconduct, and once a statutory appeal is provided and decided, the appellate order becomes the operative order reviewable in writ jurisdiction only on limited grounds.

---