Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Clause III(A) of the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation lists the main objects of the Corporation and clause III(B) of the Memorandum of Association lists the objects incidental or ancillary to the main objects. It is unnecessary to reproduce all these objects for according to the Petitions filed by the Corporation for obtaining Special Leave in these Appeals, it is currently engaged in carrying out the following activities, namely,

(i) maintaining and running river service with ancillary function of maintenance and operation of river-site jetty and terminal;

A company called the "Rivers Steam Navigation Company Limited" was carrying on very much the same business including the maintenance and running of river service as the Corporation is doing. A Scheme of Arrangement was entered into between the said company and the Corporation. The Calcutta High Court by its order dated May 5, 1967, approved the said Scheme of Arrangement and order the closure of the said Company and further directed that upon payment to all the creditors of the said Company, the said Company would stand dissolved without winding up by an order to be obtained from the High Court and accordingly, upon payment to all the creditors, the said Company was ordered to be dissolved. The said Scheme of Arrangement provided that the assets and certain liabilities of the said Company would be taken over by the Corporation. The said Scheme of Arrangement as approved by the High Court also provided as follows :

The First Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 1985, Brojo Nath Ganguly, was, at the date when the said Scheme of Arrangement became effective, working in the said Company and his services were taken over by the Corporation and he was appointed on September 8, 1967, as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer. The First Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4413 of 1985, Tarun Kanti Sengupta, was also working in the said Company and his services were also taken over by the Corporation and he was appointed on September 8, 1967, as Chief Engineer on the ship "River Ganga". It is unnecessary to refer at this stage to the terms and conditions of the letters of appointment issued to these two Respondents as they have been subsequently superseded by service rules framed by the Corporation except to state that under the said letters of appointment the age of superannuation was fifty-five years unless the Corporation agreed to retain them beyond this period. The said letters of appointment also provided that these Respondents would be subject to the service rules and regulations including the conduct rules. Service rules were framed by the Corporation for the first time in 1970 and were replaced by new rules in 1979.

So far as Sengupta, the First Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4413 of 1985, is concerned, he was promoted to the post of General Manager (River Services) with effect from January 1, 1980. His name was enrolled by the Bureau of Public Enterprises and he was called for an interview for the post of Chairman-cum-Director of the Corporation by the Public Enterprises Selection Board. According to Sengupta, he could not appear before the Selection Board as he received the letter calling him for the interview after the date fixed in D that behalf. According to Sengupta, the new Chairman-cum-Managing Director who was selected at the said interview bore a grudge against him for having competed against him for the said post and on February 1, 1983, he issued a charge-sheet against Sengupta intimating to him that a disciplinary inquiry was proposed to be held against him under the said Rules and calling upon him to file his written statement of defence. By his letter dated February 10, 1983, addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Sengupta denied the charges made against him and asked for inspection of documents and copies of statements of witnesses mentioned in the said charge-sheet. By a letter dated February 26, 1983, signed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director notice was given to Sengupta under clause (i) of Rule 9 of the said Rule, terminating his service with the Corporation with immediate effect. Along with the said letter a cheque for three months' basic pay and dearness allowance in lieu of notice was enclosed. G Both Ganguly and Sengupta filed writ petitions in Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the termination of their service as also the validity of the said Rule 9(i). In both these writ petitions rule nisi was issued and an ex parte interim order staying the operation of the said notice of termination was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Appellants before us went in Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the said High Court against the said ad interim orders, the appeal in the case of Ganguly being F.M.A.T. No. 1604 of 1983 and in the case of Sengupta being F.M.A.T. No. 649 of 1983. On January 28, 1985, the Division Bench ordered in both these Appeals that the said writ petitions should stand transferred to and heard by it along with the said appeals. The said appeals and writ petitions were thereupon heard together and by a common judgment delivered on August 9, 1985, the Division Bench held that the Corporation was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the said Rule 9(i) was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently the Division Bench struck down the said Rule 9(i) as being void. It also quashed the impugned orders of termination dated February 26, 1983. It is against the said judgment and orders of the Calcutta High Court that the present Appeals by Special Leave have been filed.