The said Shiv Charandass Aggarwal was arrested by the Delhi Police and during interrogation he admitted that he was involved in the incident, as the appellant had been harsh against him and imposed a penalty of Rs.
After the press release was published, the member Directors felt that the appellant was responsible for maligning one of the members.
This, perhaps, was the last straw on the camels back.
In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge quashed and set aside the order of termination of the appellants service and declared that the appellant shall be companytinued in the service of the First Respondent with all companysequential benefits.
The appellant challenged the termination of his service by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.
In the initial stages, the appellants service was very much appreciated by the First Respondent as a result of which he was granted accelerated increments.
The termination was purportedly in exercise of the power vested in the Board of Directors, vide Para 4 of the appointment letter of the appellant dated 12.11.1993.
2 lakhs in a public grievance appeal filed against him.
In the meanwhile, the Delhi Police after investigation gave out a press release on 7th March, 1996 naming one of the brokers, Shiv Charandass Aggarwal, as having engineered the assault on the appellant by paying money to some hooligans.
It is the case of the appellant that till about October 1995 the Executive Director, in charge of the First Respondent appreciated the appellants merits and was supportive.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on 7.7.1999 holding that the First Respondent is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the termination of the services of the appellant was malafide and illegal.
The appellant companytends that, because of strict action taken by him against some of the member Directors, the member Directors were waiting for an opportunity to get rid of him.
During this Period the First Respondents affairs were managed by elected member directors.
He is highly qualified academically, holding two first class Masters Degrees in Commerce and Arts, and three companye professional Degrees of Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary and Cost Accountant.
While he was in charge of the Investors Grievances Cell, he took strict action against certain members of the Respondent Stock Exchange.
According to the appellant, despite periodic numberes put up by him indicating how some of the brokers were acting companytrary to the rules of the Exchange and of legal provisions, numberaction was either proposed or taken against such erring brokers by the First Respondent.
The First Respondent challenged this order of the learned single judge by a Letters Patent Appeal.
On 9th June 1995 there was a murderous assault on the appellant and an FIR was lodged with the police.
Thereafter, there was a period of time when there was numberExecutive Director between 25th October, 1995 and 13th December 1995.
The appellant claims that during the period 26th October 1995 to 12th December 1995 he was subjected to companytinuous humiliation and victimization.
Initially, he was in charge of the Market Division and later on made in charge of Investor Grievances Cell.
The appellant joined the service in Delhi Stock Exchange the First Respondent in this appeal as General Manager with effect from 5.5.1992.
On 7.3.1996 the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a press release stating these facts.
In the meanwhile, on 22.5.1996, the appellant, in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, issued numberices to various brokers including the President, Vice President and senior Directors of the Stock Exchange.
On 23.5.1996 the First Respondent issued a numberice to the appellant terminating his service with immediate effect on payment of three months salary.
Srikrishna, J. This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.331/1999.
