SUSHIR ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the Deputy General Manager (Corporate) of the Cycle Corporation of India Limited, a Public Sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India has challenged order dated 9th Oct., 1995 whereby he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional legality and validity of the memorandum dated 30th Oct., 1995 whereby as many as four articles of charges were served upon the petitioner along with the statement of imputation of his conduct/misbehaviour in support of the said Articles of charges The petitioner has in fact challenged the very basis of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondent Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed in Jan. 1982 in the Management of the respondent Corporation and in June 1983 was promoted as Assistant Sales Manager. In April 1985 the petitioner was further promoted as Regional Sales Manager and in May 1986 he was elevated to the rank of Deputy Chief Marketing Manager (East) and was posted at the Eastern Regional Sales Office of the respondent to Calcutta. Since April 1992 the petitioner has been in-charge of the Calcutta Branch in the Eastern Regional Sales Office. The petitioner says that after 13th May, 1993 he has been re-designated as Deputy General Manager (Corporate).

(2.) It was in the month of Sept. 1986 that one M/s. Baba Enterprises of Jagatpur, Cuttack (Orissa) applied for distributorship of the cycles manufactured by the respondent Corporation for Cuttack and Bhubaneswar region. The said M/s. Baba Enterprises, instead of going through the regular and usual method of making an application before the Marketing and Sales Department of the respondent Corporation, directly approached respondent No 3 i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner's contention is that ultimately the matter came up to his consideration, as directed by the respondent No 3 and he in the absence of any specified code of conduct regarding the observance of formalities instructed Area Sales Officer in East Orissa to conduct a spot enquiry during his normal tour cycle. After the enquiries were completed requisite dealership question are form was given to the said M/s. Baba Enterprises which was duly filled in by them and submitted to the Corporation, In the meantime the Area Sales Officer for East Orissa also submitted his report and since it was presumed that the matter regarding the award of dealership had come from the top of the management he submitted his report accordingly. The matter was discussed by him with the petitioner and with the Chief Marketing Manager. The petitioner discussed the matter also with the then Chairman and Managing Director as well as the Chief Marketing Manager. The case of the petitioner is that during this discussion both of them expressed their eagerness to offer dealership to the aforesaid M/s. Baba Enterprises since, as per the averments in the petition, one of the partners of this concern was the son of Shri Chintamoni Panigrahi, who was at that time a member of Parliament and in that capacity, Chairman; Public Estimates Committee of Parliament and who later on became a Minister of State for Home Affairs in the Government of India, and subsequently the Governor of Nagaland. In this background the petitioner issued a letter on 6th Feb., 1987 whereby he duly accorded dealership in favour of the said M/s. Baba Enterprises and passed on demand draft for Rs 500.00 deposited by the said parties as and by way of security deposit. The petitioner's case is that the grant of dealership vide the communication dated 6th Feb., 1987 was ratified by his superior Officers comprehensively. Subsequently it appears that the aforesaid dealer committed some defaults in the payment of the amounts due by it to the respondent Corporation.

(3.) Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents by one Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh, who is the Secretary of the Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. The affidavit was affirmed on 16th July, 1996.