ORDER : 1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- WRIT OF CERTIORARI: i) Quashing the impugned order dated: 16-08-2022, issued vide no. IITJmu/Estt.II/14-14/50/2022/263, by virtue of which the petitioner was given one month termination notice arbitrarily without assigning any reason. WRIT OF MANDAMUS: ii) Commanding upon the official respondents, to allow the petitioner to continue his services in IIT Jammu till his tenure expires or he intends to work. iii) Directing the official respondent no. 1 to look into the financial irregularities being committed in IIT Jammu by the officials of IIT Jammu as being raised by the petitioner in his letter to respondent no. 1 dated: 16-08-2022 seeking Arbitration over the issues faced by him in the institute, in as much as, to constitute a high level committee to inquire into the same and to take action under law. iv) Directing the official respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner as per Office Memorandum of 09-12-2020, dealing with remuneration in case of contract appointment of retired central govt. employees. 2. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed are that the respondents issued an advertisement Notice No.IITJmu/Estt.II/11-16/14/2021/218 dated 27.06.2022 inviting online applications from qualified Retired Indian Nationals for filling up 02 posts of Project Officers with the salary package of Rs.50,000/- – Rs.80,000/- p.m. on consolidated basis, prescribing the eligibility for the said posts as graduate with atleast 55% marks from recognized University/ Institute with preference to a candidate holding MBA degree in the field of HR, Finance, Operations Management or Logistics Management. 3. The petitioner states to have applied in response to the aforesaid notification being a retired BSF Commandant, whereupon facing the process of selection, the petitioner came to be appointed on contract as Project Officer (Administration & Establishment) in terms of Order No. IITJmu/Estt.II/1/235 dated 05.07.2022 whereupon he joined on 06.07.2022 (FN) in terms of Office Order No. IITJmu/Estt.II/14-14/50/2022/237 dated 06.07.2022. 4. It is being next stated that during his working in the respondent-Institute, the petitioner pointed out certain financial irregularities and illegalities committed in the Institute causing financial loss to the Institution, as also lack of transparency as a measure of counter blast to which, the respondents disengaged the petitioner in terms of Order No. IITJmu/Estt.II/14-14/50/2022/263 dated 16.08.2022 (for short “the impugned order”). 5. 5. The petitioner has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds:- i. That, the impugned one month notice for termination of services vide dated: 16-08-2022 at around 3:30 PM was communicated to the petitioner, after the petitioner communicated letter dated: 16-08-2022 at around 11:00 AM to respondent no. 2 seeking Arbitration over the issues being faced by the petitioner in the institution i.e. IIT Jammu, which are very indispensable in nature, as the petitioner has pin pointed irregularities and illegalities committed in the IIT Jammu which needed to be addressed, in as much as, impediments were caused in free functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Registrar Administration and Establishment which included freezing his E.Gov. Portal, not giving free access to records, files of his office. Therefore, the impugned order dated: 16-08-2022 terminating services of petitioner with one month advance notice is passed with mala-fide intentions and need to be quashed and set-aside. ii. That, the impugned order has been passed without assigning reasons, which is not permissible under law and is unconstitutional, as a person who is about to be deprived of anything, has a right to know the reasons behind the same, because reasons constitutes the soul of an order, in as much as, any order without assigning reasons amount to arbitrariness, thus will fall foul of Article 14 of Constitution of India, therefore, the impugned order doesn't sustain in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed, iii. That, as per the term conditions of the contract itself the petitioners services are for 1 year extendable up to 5 years, and the petitioner is not required on need basis but was engaged from the category of person of eminence who has retired from a respectable post in Central Govt. Services as Commandant in BSF, therefore, the services of petitioner are required to built the institute and by issuing impugned order the respondents in IIT Jammu have adopted hire and fire policy, which is totally unconstitutional and arbitrary, as such, the impugned order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 6. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed, inter-alia, on the premise that none of the fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner have been violated by the answering respondents and that the petitioner has mis-stated and mis-represented the facts. 6. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed, inter-alia, on the premise that none of the fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner have been violated by the answering respondents and that the petitioner has mis-stated and mis-represented the facts. It is further stated that the disengagement of the petitioner came to be ordered on account of the following facts:- I. The termination o[ the services of Sh. Swarn Dev was initiated under clause 8 of the offer of appointment No.IITJmu/Estt.llll/235 dated July 05, 2022, duly accepted by him. The decision of the termination of his services was taken in the light of the following:- : a. Likely closure of the advertised post of Assistant Registrar in a very short period of time and regular availability of another Deputy Registrar after his absence due to personal matters. b. Substantial delay on part of Sh. Swarn Dev in discharge of the official matters. c. Relinquishing from discharge of assigned official responsibilities. d. Lack of devotion to duty at all time. e. Irregular attendance of the office (Out of 47 working days, till 15 September, 202, he remained absent from the duty for 16 days and attended office for 2-3 hours on 5 days). II. In addition to above, the petitioner has given the lame excuses about the alleged irregularities and illegalities without supporting evidence. This has been done with the intention to malign the image of the Institute of National Importance and raising a question on the functioning of the Institute. 7. It is being further stated in the objections that the petitioner never brought into the notice of the higher authorities the allegations of financial irregularities or corruption as the Institute has a system of pre-audit in place before processing the bill for payment exceeding Rs. 2.50 lacs. 8. It is being further stated that the demand of the petitioner to constitute an Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions of Section 30 of the IIT Act, 1961 was asked for without exhausting the channel of representation as per Clause 14 of the Schedule C of Statute 19(3) of the Act. 9. 2.50 lacs. 8. It is being further stated that the demand of the petitioner to constitute an Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions of Section 30 of the IIT Act, 1961 was asked for without exhausting the channel of representation as per Clause 14 of the Schedule C of Statute 19(3) of the Act. 9. It is admitted that the petitioner came to be engaged pursuant to advertisement notice dated 27.06.2022 against the post of Project Officer by way of a stop-gap arrangement for a very short duration of time and the work related to the Administration and Establishment was assigned to him, besides instructing to prepare a plan of action and impart training to the staff of IIT Jammu on priority basis for upgrading their skills and knowledge on rules and regulations and which the petitioner denied to perform for one or the other reason. It has been further reiterated in the objections that the petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned post, but as a Project Officer on ad hoc and stop-gap arrangement basis post to his superannuation, which the petitioner accepted without any objection and that the said engagement of the petitioner was dependent of requirement of the Institute with an option to the Institute to terminate the services of the petitioner by issuance of notice of one month in writing. 10. It is further reiterated that the petitioner did not discharge his duties with full devotion and that the allegation of the petitioner that the E-Gov portal account was freezing at the instance of the Dean of the Institute is false and frivolous, as the said portal was active till 15 September, 2022 and the petitioner during this period have had free access to the records and files available thereon the said portal relating to his work as Project Officer, Human Resources & Establishment in IIT Jammu. It is also denied in the objections that the disengagement of the petitioner was ordered as counter-blast to his letter dated 16 August, 2022, wherein the petitioner had sought arbitration of the matter. 11. The respondents in their objections have also responded to the grounds urged in the petition almost on the similar grounds on which paras of the petition have been responded to. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. 11. The respondents in their objections have also responded to the grounds urged in the petition almost on the similar grounds on which paras of the petition have been responded to. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is an admitted fact emerging from the record that the respondent- Institute issued advertisement notice dated 27.06.2022, inviting online applications from qualified Retired Indian Nationals for filling up 02 posts of Project Officers, one in Administration & Establishment and the other in Procurement and Inventory Control/ Accounts & Audit section carrying the consolidated salary package of Rs.50,000/- - Rs. 80,000/- per month. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner herein came to be engaged/appointed as Project Officer (Administration & Establishment) in terms of office Letter No. IITJmu/Estt.II/1/235 dated 05.07.2022 in response to which the petitioner joined on 06.07.2022 and in token of acknowledgment of his joining, Office Order No. IITJmu/Estt.II/14-14/50/2022/237 dated 06.07.2022 came to be issued by the respondents. The said engagement order dated 05.07.2022 being relevant and germane herein is extracted and reproduced in-extenso hereunder:- “No. IITJmu/Estt.II/1/235 05 July 2022 To Sh. Swarn Dev C065 Bharat Nagar, Talab Tillo Jammu 180002 Dear Sh. Swarn Dev, With reference to your online application received and selection proceedings culminated, you are hereby offered appointment on contract as Project Officer. Administration and Establishment on the following terms and conditions: 1. Nature of appointment The engagement shall be purely on contract basis initially for Six Months, extendable from time to time on performance review maximum upto five years or attainment of 65 years of age, whichever is earlier and period of engagement shall be purely dependent on the requirement of the Institute. The engagement shall be temporary nature and IIT Jammu can cancel the engagement at any time without providing the reason. However, in normal course of engagement can be terminated by either party, by giving one month notice. 2. Pay Consolidated salary of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) p.m. 3. Leave Maximum of 30 days of leave which will be credited leave account @ 2.5 days per calendar month of service. No leave encashment or carry forward is permissible beyond one year or on the termination of the contract/ renewal of the contract 4. Duty You will be required to work during the day/night shift as per the needs of the Institute. No leave encashment or carry forward is permissible beyond one year or on the termination of the contract/ renewal of the contract 4. Duty You will be required to work during the day/night shift as per the needs of the Institute. The Project Officer shall not be permitted to take up any other assignment during the period of engagement with IIT Jammu. 5. Travelling Allowance No joining time pay or travelling allowance will be allowed in joining the post or on leaving the service. 6. Medical Examination You are required to produce a Medical Certificate from the Medical Officer of Government Hospital about your present sound health and physical fitness. 7. Character Certificate You should produce at the time of joining the duty the character certificate on the attached proforma from a responsible person. 8. Termination of Service Contract Service The service of a contract employee shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the employee to the Appointing authority or the Appointing authority to the employee. The period of such notice shall be one month, unless otherwise agreed to by the Institute and the employee. 9. General All other terms and conditions as contained in advertisement or any other rules framed thereunder or otherwise for contractual employees shall be applicable. 10. Verification Your appointment will also be subject to verification of your qualification/experience and other documents etc. mentioned in your application. If the above terms and conditions are acceptable, you should report for duty immediately and in any case not later than 06.07.2022. You will obtain clearance from your present employer before joining duty, if applicable. You should acknowledge receipt of this letter by return of email within 01 day of receipt of this letter, in case of no response it will be presumed that you are not interested in the offer and the same will stand cancelled. You will obtain clearance from your present employer before joining duty, if applicable. You should acknowledge receipt of this letter by return of email within 01 day of receipt of this letter, in case of no response it will be presumed that you are not interested in the offer and the same will stand cancelled. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (R K Manjhiwal) Officiating Registrar” As is manifest from the terms and conditions supra governing the appointment of the petitioner, the nature of appointment indisputably had been contractual initially for a period of 06 months extendable from time on the performance review upto 05 years or on attaining 65 years of age, whichever is earlier, besides being dependent on the requirement of the Institute providing further a right to the respondent- Institute to cancel the engagement at any time without providing reasons, as also providing to be terminable by either party by giving one month’s Notice. 13. Perusal of the impugned order ex-facie tends to show that the respondents have invoked the power of disengaging the petitioner in terms of the conditions supra and though the impugned order has been couched in simple language to demonstrate that the conditions of appointment has been invoked, yet the perusal of the response filed to the petition manifestly shows that the petitioner stands disengaged on account of the various acts of omission and commission allegedly committed by the petitioner during the course of his working as Project Officer (Administration & Establishment). 14. The moot question under these circumstances, thus, for consideration of this Court would be as to whether the respondents rightly invoked Clause 8 of the condition supra and validly disengaged the petitioner. 15. Before proceeding to deal with the aforesaid question a reference to the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard would be appropriate. The Apex Court in case titled as “The Manager, Govt. Branch Press & anr. Vs D. B. Belliawpa,” reported in 1979 (1) SCC 477 , wherein at paras 24 & 25 following has been observed:- “24. The Apex Court in case titled as “The Manager, Govt. Branch Press & anr. Vs D. B. Belliawpa,” reported in 1979 (1) SCC 477 , wherein at paras 24 & 25 following has been observed:- “24. Conversely, if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated, arbitrarily, and not on the ground of his unsuitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of unfair discrimination may arise, notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service, the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity, or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of 11 the service, it is the duty of the authority to dispell that charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. Excepting, perhaps, in cases analogous to those covered by Article 311(2), Proviso (c), the authority cannot withhold such information from the Court on the lame excuse, that the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the conditions of the service. "The giving of reasons", as Lord Denning put it in Green v. Amalgamated Engineering Union. "is one of the fundamentals of good administration", and, to recall the words of this Court in Khudi Ram v. State of West Bengal in a Government of laws "there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial review ability". The executive, no less than the judiciary, is under a general duty to act fairly. Indeed, fairness founded on reason is the essence of the guarantee epitomized in Articles 14 and 16(1). 25. Another facet of Mr. Veerappa's contention is that the respondent had voluntarily entered into a contract of service on the terms of employment offered to him. One of the terms of that contract, embodied in tile letter of his appointment is that his service was purely temporary and was liable to termination at the will and pleasure of the appointing authority, without reason and without notice. Having willingly accepted the employment on terms offered to him, the respondent cannot complain against the impugned action taken in accordance with those mutually agreed terms. Having willingly accepted the employment on terms offered to him, the respondent cannot complain against the impugned action taken in accordance with those mutually agreed terms. The argument is wholly misconceived. It is borrowed from the archaic common law concept that employment was a matter between the master and servant only. In the first place, this rule in its original absolute form is not applicable to Government servant. Secondly, even with regard to private employment, much of it has passed into the fossils of time. "This rule held the field at the time when the master and servant were taken more literally than they are now and when, as in early Roman Law, the rights of the servant, like the rights of any other member of the household, were not his own, but those of his pater familias". The overtones of this ancient doctrine are discernible in the Anglo-American jurisprudence of the 18th century and the first half of the 20th century, which rationalized the employer's absolute right to discharge the employee. "Such a philosophy", as pointed out by K. K. Mathew J. (vide his treatise: "Democracy, Equality and Freedom", page 326), "of the employer's dominion over his employee may have been in tune with the rustic simplicity of bygone days. But that philosophy is incompatible with these days of large, impersonal, corporate employers." To bring it in tune with vastly changed and changing socio-economic conditions and mores of the day, much of this old antiquated and unjust doctrine has been eroded by judicial decisions and legislation, particularly in its application to persons in public employment, to whom the Constitutional protection of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 311 is available. The argument is therefore overruled.” The Apex Court in case titled as “A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. and another Vs P. V. Swaminathan,” reported in (2001) 10 SCC 83 has at para 3 held as under:- “3. The legal position is fairly well settled that an order of termination of a temporary employee or a probationer or even a tenure employee, simpliciter without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by the court. But the court is not debarred from looking at the attendant circumstances. The legal position is fairly well settled that an order of termination of a temporary employee or a probationer or even a tenure employee, simpliciter without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by the court. But the court is not debarred from looking at the attendant circumstances. namely, the circumstances prior to the issuance of order of termination to find out whether the alleged inefficiency really was the motive for the order of termination or formed the foundation for the same order. If the court comes to a conclusion that the order was, in fact, the motive, then obviously the order would not be interfered with, but if the court comes to a conclusion that the so-called inefficiency was the real foundation for passing of order of termination, then obviously such an order would be held to be penal in nature and must be interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not been followed. The decisions of this Court relied upon by Mr. K. Ram Kumar also stipulate that if an allegation of arbitrariness is made in assailing an order of termination, it will be open for the employer to indicate how and what was the motive for passing the order of termination, and it is in that sense in the counter-affidavit it can be indicated that the unsuitability of the person was the reason for which the employer acted in accordance with the terms of employment and it never wanted to punish the employee. But on examining the assertions made in paras 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit, in the present case it would be difficult for us to hold that in the case in hand, the appellant-employer really terminated the services in accordance with the terms of the employment and not by way of imposing the penalty in question.” A further reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in passed in case titled as “K. Ragupathi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others,” reported in (2022) 6 SCC 346 would also be relevant wherein the aforesaid principles have been reiterated. 16. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid position and principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments supra and coming back to the case in hand, it is manifest that the respondents disengaged the petitioner on account his alleged acts of omission and commission though purportedly invoking the terms of his engagement by giving one month’s notice. Under such circumstances, the respondents were required to have acted fairly and justly and essentially ought to have conducted an inquiry against the petitioner, providing him a chance to defend himself qua the allegations levelled against him referred in the objections filed to the petition which the respondents have miserably failed to do. Thus, issuance of impugned order cannot under these circumstances said to be fair, reasonable and in tune with the principles of fair-play, good conscience and natural justice and consequently sustainable in law. 17. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed herein above, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, by issuance of writ of certiorari impugned Order No. IITJmu/Estt.II/14-14/50/2022/263 dated 16.08.2022 is quashed and by a writ of mandamus the respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in service with a liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry within one month from today against the petitioner, in the event they choose so, for the alleged acts of omission and commission referred in the objections and the result of said inquiry shall determine as to whether the petitioner is entitled and eligible to be allowed to continue in the engagement in question. 18. Disposed of accordingly along with connected application.