SUDHIR CHAWLA v. CHANDIGARH INDUSTRIAL & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION LIMITED, AND OTHERS
CWP/29160/2018 · 2025-08-18
Jagmohan Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 74191 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 74191 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-29160-2018 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025
Sudhir Chawla
...Petitioner Versus
Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development, Corporation Limited, and Others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Ms. Aanchal Rani, Advocate and Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate for Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure P-10) whereby he was called upon to explain his position with respect to letter dated 18.10.2018. He is further seeking stay of order dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) whereby he was terminated.
2.
From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner was appointed as Deputy General Manager, Hotel Shivalik View, Sector-17, Chandigarh on contract basis. The contract was for a period of three years. It could be renewed. 0000000000000The contract commenced w.e.f. 31.07.2017. The petitioner could not achieve targets and further there was default of Rs.21,39,855/- by two guests. As the contract was for PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-29160-2018
-2-
three years and services of the petitioner were not satisfactory, thus, respondent terminated him with one month notice.
3.
The petitioner was terminated from service in 2018. A period of seven years has passed away. It was a contractual appointment. The respondent has recorded reasons for not continuing service of the petitioner. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.
4.
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing the present petition.
5.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
6.
The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE 18.08.2025 Prince Chawla
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.08.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document