TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ange - the First Respondent in this appeal - as General Manager with effect from 5-5-1992. Initially, he was in-charge of the Market Division and later on made in-charge of Investors Grievances Cell. He is highly qualified academically, holding two first class Masters Degrees in Commerce and Arts, and three core professional Degrees of Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary and Cost Accountant. In the initial stages, the appellant's service was very much appreciated by the First Respondent as a result of which he was granted accelerated increments. While he was in-charge of the Investors Grievances Cell, he took strict action against certain members of the Respondent Stock Exchange. This caused some dissatisfaction in the minds of some of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up by him indicating how some of the brokers were acting contrary to the rules of the Exchange and of legal provisions, no action was either proposed or taken against such erring brokers by the First Respondent. After the press release was published, the member-Directors felt that the appellant was responsible for maligning one of the members. In the meanwhile, on 22-5-1996, the appellant, in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, issued notices to various brokers including the President, Vice-President and senior Directors of the Stock Exchange. This, perhaps, was the last straw on the camel's back. On 23-5-1996 the First Respondent issued a notice to the appellant terminating his service with immediate effect on payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial on record which leads to loss of confidence is not valid in law ? (ii)Whether in a case where the Stock Exchange has lost confidence in its General Manager who was holding the post of trust should be reimposed on the Stock Exchange or is it not appropriate to grant him compensation in lieu of reinstatement as per the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Bhandari v. ITDC AIR 1987 SC 111." 4. By judgment dated 1-3-2001 the learned Single Judge held that the two issues had not been argued before him at all. Referring in detail to what transpired before him, he held : "When the point had not been taken in the counter-affidavit and when leave was sought to file an additional-affidavit and the point is mentioned only in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a case of loss of confidence and the employee having the post of trust ? 6. Answering question No. 1, the Division Bench held that the Delhi Stock Exchange satisfied the conditions laid down by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 and, therefore, the First Respondent was 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 7. On the second question, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant was a permanent employee. Having regard to the fact that the provision corresponding to clause (4) of his letter of appointment has been held ultra vires in a series of judgments of this Court, the Division Bench was of the opi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in O.P. Bhandari's case (supra). 10. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal of the First Respondent-Delhi Stock Exchange and directed as under : "In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that payment of compensation for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs shall meet the ends of justice. Out of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 12 lakhs, the amount which has already been paid to the respondent by the appellant shall be adjusted. Such balance amount should be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from date. Mr. Shanti Bhushan admitted that the writ petitioner had tried to obtain employment but did not succeed so far. It is, therefore, not ruled out that he has a chance of getting re-employment. As agreed to by the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement with the conclusions of the Division Bench that the respondent No. 1 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction, that the termination of services of the appellant in purported exercise of powers vested under paragraph (4) of letter of appointment dated 12-11-1993 is illegal and that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the removal of the appellant from the service was both mala fide and unjustified. This takes us to the question of relief to be granted to the appellant. 14. From a reading of the judgment it appears to us that the Division Bench of the High Court decided that compensation in lieu of reinstatement was the better option and moulded the relief according to what the parties had agreed. It is not possible for us, theref....