B P SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DE hors, subterfuge facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner prior to his appointment as the Managing Director of Bharat Wagon and Engineering Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was working as the General Manager of the said Company. The Union Government by its letter dated 4th December, 1997 addressed to the Company Secretary of the Company conveyed the sanction of the President to the appointment of the petitioner as the Managing Director of the Company on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said letter. According to that the period of petitioner&aposs appointment as Managing Director shall be of 5 years with effect from 8.10.1997 in the first instance or till the age of superannuation whichever is earlier. There is no dispute that the petitioner&aposs tenure of 5 years would have been earlier than the age of his superannuation. As regards the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules; the condition laid was that the rules framed by the Company in respect of the other non -workmen category of staff would mutatis mutandis apply with the modification that the disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner shall be the President. It is common ground that the non -workmen category and all the staff of the Company is governed by the Bharat Wagon and Engineering Company Ltd. (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as the Managing Director of the Company the President in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 67 of the Articles of Association and Rule 21 of the Rules placed him under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner resorted to the remedy of appeal against the order of suspension and after sometime filed the writ application. During the pendency of the writ application by order dated 8.11.2002 his appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) AS stated earlier, the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director for a period of 5 years and he was put under suspension by order dated 30.10.2001 and the President in exercise of his powers under Article 67(1)(a) of the Articles of Association of the Company terminated the tenure of the petitioner with immediate effect. It is relevant here to state that it came to the notice of the President that there is no uniformity amongst the Public Sector Enterprises in regard to retention of lien of employees below board level when they are selected and appointed to the post at the board level, hence in exercise of the power conferred under Articles of Association the President directed that the Company should permit retention of lien for a period not exceeding 3 years to its employees holding post below board level when they are appointed to the post at the board level in the same public sector undertaking or in any other Central public undertaking.