PRASANTA CHANDRA SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions by the selfsame writ petitioner pose certain interesting questions of law as regards the pleasure theory of the President of the Union of India under the Constitution, as also the jurisdiction of the writ court to intervene at the initial stage of a departmental proceeding.

(2.) Before adverting to the contentions raised, a brief reference to facts ought to be made at this juncture. The petitioner was appointed as the chairman and managing director of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. by an order dated January 11, 1982, by the President of India in exercise of the powers under Article 83 of the articles of association of the company for a period of two years at the first instance with immediate effect. Subsequently, by an order dated January 25, 1984, the two year-term was extended by a further period of three years and up to January 21, 1987. Under the abovenoted memorandum, the President was also pleased to allow the petitioner to hold the current charge of the post of chairman and managing director of Bharat Brakes and Bulbs Ltd. with effect from November 9, 1983, and until further orders. The terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment as appears from a memorandum dated August 31, 1982, read as follows :

(3.) By a letter dated July 18, 1986, the petitioner, however, submitted his resignation as chairman and managing director of Burn Standard Co. Ltd., Bharat Brakes and Bulbs Ltd. as also Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Co. Ltd. The petitioner, while submitting his resignation, intimated to the Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, that his outstanding leave may be taken as adjusted for the purpose of notice in terms of Clause (iii) of the terms and conditions on which he had joined as chairman and managing director. The language of the letter of resignation is of some consequence and as such, the relevant extract of the same is set out hereinbelow for proper appreciation :