J.S.ARORA Vs. D.V.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the orders of 30/1/2004, 3/6/2004 and 4/4/2006. By the first order of 30/1/2004, the engagement of the petitioner as Director (HRD) in the Damodar Valley Corporation [3] on probation came to be terminated with immediate effect. By the order of 3/6/2004, the Bokaro Power Supply Company Private Limited [4] is stated to have offered the position of Head of Personnel and Administration to the petitioner. BPSCL is a joint venture entity formed by SAIL and the Corporation. Assailing the order of termination, the petitioner came to prefer W.P.(C) 20141/2005 before this Court. That petition was disposed of on 22/2/2006, with a direction to the Union - respondent to decide a representation that had been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by his termination. Pursuant to the directions issued on that writ petition, the Union - respondent has proceeded to pass the order of 4/4/2006, noting that since the Corporation was an autonomous body which was governed by independent statutory regulations, no interference with the decision so taken was merited.

(2.) The facts on which there is no major dispute inter partes are as follows. The petitioner was granted appointment as Director (HRD) on 8/7/2003. His continuance as a probationer came to an end on 30/1/2004, upon the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal against that order of termination to the Chairman of the Corporation on 17/2/2004. It was during the pendency of that appeal that the respondents appear to have taken up a proposal for appointment of the petitioner as a Director in BPSCL. The petitioner asserts that initially he was offered the post of Director (Personnel) in BPSCL. However, the ultimate appointment letter which came to be addressed to the petitioner offered him the post of Head of Personnel and Administration as noted hereinbefore. The petitioner is, thereafter, stated to have made a representation to the Ministry of Power. It was this representation and the proceedings which ensued thereafter which fell for notice and consideration by this Court in the writ petition which was preferred.

(3.) Reverting back to the period while the aforesaid representation before the Ministry of Power was pending, the petitioner has by way of a separate paper-book also placed on the record various internal communications and file notings as existing on the record of the Corporation. Those records bear out that on 10/8/2005, the Chairman of the Corporation constituted a four-member committee to examine the representation made and to look into the grievances which were raised by the petitioner. The terms of reference of that Committee are set forth in its report dtd. 5/9/2005. The terms of reference which would be of some relevance are extracted herein below: -