“ 20. The second grievance of the plaintiff was that termination letter dated 30.09.1999 was illegal in nature. As per plaintiff, he was wrongly terminated by defendant no. 4 since he was never given personal hearing by defendant no. 4, prior to issuance of said letter. The said grievance, as such lost its correctness and legality when it was an admitted position that plaintiff had applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in the office of defendant no.3, which was accepted by defendant no. 3 vide letter Ex.PW1/1, which means that relationship of defendant no. 3 as against plaintiff was that of an employer and an employee. That relationship was governed by rules, as relied by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/11 in which, clause 21 empower defendant no. 3 to terminate its employee, without assigning any reason by giving three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof . Further, clause 22 empower defendant no. 3 to determine the services of its employee in case, the employee is found unfit on account of his/her health, subject to the aforesaid three months notice or three months salary. So, by accepting the employment of defendant no. 3, plaintiff had acceded to the said terms and conditions. If that is so, then, termination of plaintiff was not illegal as it was not required that he had to be heard personally by defendant no. 3, prior to termination of his
