Abeyaratne v Janatha Fertilizer Enterprises Ltd. and
Others (Yana, J.)
JANATHA FERTILIZER ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURTBANDARANAYAKE, J.
EDUSSURIYA, J. ANDYAPA, J
SC APPLICATION (FR) 311/2000
18TH OCTOBER AND 2ND DECEMBER 2002
AND 8TH JANUARY, 2003
Fundamental Rights-lnterdiction and dismissal of the petitioner without inquiry-Denial of natural justice motivated by alleged ill will – Constitution, Article 12( 1)
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R
The petitioner was the Finance Manager of the 1 st respondent Company whichwas a Government Owned Company. He was appointed to that post on10.05.1996. By a letter dated 02.03.2000, the 2nd respondent Chairman of theCompany, called for the petitioner’s explanation for alleged lapses and misman-agement of duty. The petitioner tendered a detailed explanation by his reply dated06.03.2000. The 2nd respondent in his letter dated 23.03.2000 repeated the alle-gation of failure to complete accounts up to 1998 and informed that a chargesheet would follow. However,, without any charge sheet or inquiry the 2nd respon-dent by his letter dated 10.04.2000 informed that the Board of Directors of theCompany had decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitionerwas so removed notwithstanding a commendation by the previous Chairman inrespect of his work for the Company as Finance Manager.
On the suggestion of the previous Chairman the petitioner had prepared a new“Sales Procedure” for the 1st respondent Company in order to prevent fraudsand for better credit management. The procedure suggested inter alia, thatwhole sale dealers should furnish Bank Guarantees. The 2nd respondent,treated the proposed procedure unfriendly towards him and suggested to thepetitioner to modify it giving the '2hd respondent a discretion to waive therequirement of a Bank Guarantee.
In the circumstances the termination of the petitioner’s services without aninquiry was contrary to natural justice, arbitrary and capricious and infringedthe petitioner’s rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
Per Yapa, J
“Even if the petitioner had a black case yet he was entitled to a hearing.”
‘There appears to be some truth in the petitioner’s claim that the 2nd and 3rdrespondents were not well disposed towards him and continued to harass andhumiliate him.”
Cases referred to:
General Medical Council v Spackman (1943) AC 627 at 644
Amaradasa v Land Reform Commission 79 NLR 505
Cooper v The Wandsworth Board of Works 14 C.B. (NS) 180 at 194
Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40
Izadeen v The Director General of Civil Aviation (1996) 2 Sri LR 348
W. P. C. Fernando v Milk Industries of Lanka Company Ltd. ”Milco” andothers SC 670/97 SC minutes of 05.11.1999
APPLICATION for relief for infringement of fundamental rights.
Peter Jayasekera with P. Liyanaarachchi and Bandula Wellala for petitioner.Sanjeewa Jayawardena for 1 st to 3rd respondents.
ABEYARATNE v. JANATHA FERTILIZER ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS