SUBHRA BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of suspension dated 25th July, 2014, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Director (Personnel) of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. as also for quashing the order dated 23.01.2015, by which in purported exercise of review of the suspension of the petitioner, the same has been extended for three months, although no departmental proceeding as contemplated has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to take a final decision on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension and to declare that the entire process of initiation of suspension order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and actuated with malice.

(2.) The writ petition discloses that the petitioner after being selected by the Public Enterprises Selection Board joined Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. as Director (Personnel) on 6th March, 2012. The petitioner prior to joining H.E.C. was employed as Senior General Manager (Corporate HR) in Electro Steel Castings Ltd. from August, 2010 till Feb 2012 and with Larsen & Toubro Ltd at Vadodara in the capacity of Senior D.G.M. (Training & Development and Administration) from 31 January 2006 till 31 July 2010. The petitioner had initially been in the Indian Army, from where he retired as a Colonel on 25th January, 2006. An order was served upon the petitioner dated 25.07.2014, wherein in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding for major penalty for violation of Rule 5 ( 5, 6 , 20) of Heavy Engineering Corporation Employees' Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1981, the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. A representation by way of an appeal for revocation of the suspension order was preferred by the petitioner on 27th August, 2014, in which the petitioner had detailed his defence with respect to the allegations levelled against him. The Chairman cum Managing Director of HEC Ltd. on being asked to give his comments on the appeal of the petitioner dated 27.08.2014 had lauded the proactive action on the part of the petitioner and had, therefore, recommended that the suspension of the petitioner be revoked and the appeal be allowed. A Review Committee was constituted to review the suspension of the petitioner, which submitted a report on 23.01.2015 and the disciplinary authority decided to accept the recommendation of the Review Committee and accordingly the suspension order of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three months with effect from 25.01.2015.

(3.) Heard Mr. Subhra Banerjee, who has appeared in person. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents have, without any basis passed the order of suspension and have subsequently extended the same for a further period of three months with effect from 25.01.2015. The petitioner has stated that HEC was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( BIFR) and was recommended to be closed down but in view of the order of this Court in WPC No. 4513 of 2004 a revival package was implemented with the consent of the Central Government, State Government and HEC.