( 1 ) THE Petitioner is working as Director (Personnel) in the Public Sector Undertaking known as Power Grid Corporation of India which is impleaded as respondent No. 4. It is a common case that the appointment to the post of Director (Personnel) is a Board level appointment which is made by Central Government/union of India (respondent No. 1) on the recommendation of Public Enterprises Selection Board (respondent No. 2) after the approval of Appointment Committee of Cabinet. The appointment of the petitioner is governed by terms and conditions contained in letter dated 9th June, 1999 by respondent No. 1. Reference to the relevant terms and conditions as incorporated in this letter would be made at the appropriate stage. At this stage it would be sufficient to mention that as per paragraph 13 of these terms and conditions conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by respondent No. 4 in respect of its non-working category staff are to apply to the petitioner mutatis-mutandi with the modification that Disciplinary Authority in his case would be the President of India, since the Appointing Authority is the President.

( 2 ) IN the present petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1st October, 1999 placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. He has challenged this order on three counts, namely;

(I) Order of suspension can be passed, under Rule 20 (1) (a) of Power Grid Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, only when disciplinary proceeding is either contemplated or pending against the petitioner. However, as on 1st October, 1999 when the impugned order of suspension was passed, no disciplinary proceedings were either contemplated or pending. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the suspension order could not have been passed on 1st October, 1999 and the order is illegal on this count.

(II) Order is actuated by mala fides inasmuch as it is passed at the behest of respondent No. 3 who is chairman-cum- Managing Director of respondent No. 4 and inimical towards the petitioner;

(III) Before passing the impugned order of suspension petitioner was not heard in the matter and no opportunity was given to him to explain his point of view in respect of the alleged misconduct and, therefore the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the aforesaid challenge of the petitioner to his suspension, it would be useful at this stage to mention the facts in some more detail. However I may hasten to add that while elaborating the facts unnecessary details are avoided.

( 4 ) THE petitioner claims himself to be a person of outstanding merit with remarkable achievements at his credit. He joined respondent No. 4 on 20th May, 1992 and was appointed as General Manager on 16th December, 1995. Thereafter he was selected as Director (Personnel) and was appointed to this post vide order dated 7th July, 1998 as already pointed out above. The petitioner alleges in the petitioner that all throughout respondent No. 3 has shown his attitude qua the petitioner which is vindictive and for oblique purposes and extraneous reasons petitioner is victimised at his hands. According to the petitioner on 1st August, 1992 respondent No. 3 was promoted out of turn to the post of Additional General Manager when, at that point of time, both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were Deputy General Managers. The petitioner had made representations against the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Additional General Manager. This angered respondent No. 3 enough to spoil the petitioner s career in future. He states that thereafter his Annual Confidential Report was spoiled even when the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Manager on 16th December, 1995. Respondent No. 3 had opposed the same and notwithstanding his opposition the petitioner was appointed to the said post. He even got the petitioner s candidature to the post of Executive Director rejected when the said post was sought to be