W.P.(C) 7359/2006

Page 1 of 43

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 10 JANUARY 2022

Judgment pronounced on: 18 JANUARY 2022

+

W.P.(C) 7359/2006

J.S.ARORA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Jatin Mongia and Mr.Akshit

Mohan, Advs.

versus

D.V.C. & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. J. K. Das, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Swetanketu Mishra, Adv. for

respondent nos.1 & 2.

Mr. T. P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt.

Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

J U D G M E N T

1.

The petitioner challenges the orders of 30 January 2004, 03 June

2004 and 04 April 2006. By the first order of 30 January 2004, the

engagement of the petitioner as Director (HRD) in the Damodar Valley

Corporation¹ on probation came to be terminated with immediate effect.

By the order of 03 June 2004, the Bokaro Power Supply Company

Private Limited² is stated to have offered the position of Head of

1Corporation

2BPSCL

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000217

W.P.(C) 7359/2006

Page 2 of 43

Personnel and Administration to the petitioner. BPSCL is a joint venture

entity formed by SAIL and the Corporation. Assailing the order of

termination, the petitioner came to prefer W.P.(C) 20141/2005 before this

Court. That petition was disposed of on 22 February 2006, with a direction

to the Union – respondent to decide a representation that had been preferred

by the petitioner aggrieved by his termination. Pursuant to the directions

issued on that writ petition, the Union – respondent has proceeded to pass

the order of 04 April 2006, noting that since the Corporation was an

autonomous body which was governed by independent statutory

regulations, no interference with the decision so taken was merited.

2.

The facts on which there is no major dispute inter partes are as

follows. The petitioner was granted appointment as Director (HRD) on 08

July 2003. His continuance as a probationer came to an end on 30 January

2004, upon the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner is stated to

have preferred an appeal against that order of termination to the Chairman

of the Corporation on 17 February 2004. It was during the pendency of that

appeal that the respondents appear to have taken up a proposal for

appointment of the petitioner as a Director in BPSCL. The petitioner

asserts that initially he was offered the post of Director (Personnel) in

BPSCL. However, the ultimate appointment letter which came to be

addressed to the petitioner offered him the post of Head of Personnel and

Administration as noted hereinbefore. The petitioner is, thereafter, stated to

have made a representation to the Ministry of Power. It was this

representation and the proceedings which ensued thereafter which fell for

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000217

W.P.(C) 7359/2006

Page 3 of 43

notice and consideration by this Court in the writ petition which was

preferred.

3.

Reverting back to the period while the aforesaid representation

before the Ministry of Power was pending, the petitioner has by way of a

separate paper-book also placed on the record various internal

communications and file notings as existing on the record of the

Corporation. Those records bear out that on 10 August 2005, the Chairman

of the Corporation constituted a four-member committee to examine the

representation made and to look into the grievances which were raised by

the petitioner. The terms of reference of that Committee are set forth in its

report dated 05 September 2005. The terms of reference which would be of

some relevance are extracted hereinbelow: -

“1. To examine all facts regarding the process of appointment of Shri J.S.

Arora as Director (HRD), DVC and reasons for his subsequent

termination from DVC service in the light of representations made by

Shri Arora against hi