- (1.) At an extraordinary general meeting held on the 14th Feb., 1969, the Board of Directors of the British India Corporation Limited were authorised in pursuance of Section 293 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956, to sell the assets of the two Undertakings, named, Cooper Allen Branch and the North West Tannery Branch, to the new Company which was to be promoted by and under the direction of the Government of India. The Government of India promoted the Company under the name and style of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India, in which the entire share capital was owned by the President of India. In pursuance of Art. 97 (b) of the Articles of Association of the Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India, Kanpur, the President appointed on 5th April, 1980, Raja Harendra Singh as Director of the said Corporation for a period of five years with effect from the date on which he assumed charge of the post. By the same order, in pursuance of Art. 97 (a) of the Articles of Association, the President appointed Raja Harendra Singh as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation for the same period of five years. On 24th March, 1982, Raja Harendra Singh was removed by the President from the offices of the Director as wel.l as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said Corporation under Art. 97 (c) of the Articles of Association.
(2.) Challenging the order of removal, the Petitioner's learned counsel Sri S.S. Bhatnagar raised two points before us. The first was that the petitioner held a "civil post" and, as such, was entitled to an opportunity being given under Art. 311 of the Constitution before termination of his employment. The second argument was that the rules, which are known as "Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979", a copy of which has been filed as Annexure Rs.2' to the writ petition being the Rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution, applied to the petitioner. Under that rule, the removal of the petitioner amounted to penalty which could be imposed only after giving an opportunity to him, and as no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, his removal is invalid.
(3.) Having heard Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied with either of the two points. The first thing which is required to be considered is whether M/s. Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Limited is a Company having distinct and separate identity and personality than that of the Union of India or it is a part of an instrumentality of the Union and being so was one of its Departments :;