( 1 ) PETITIONER is before me challenging the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet dated 5-10-2004 and the subsequent order of suspension dated 12-11-2004. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was working as Director Technical. The said post was upgraded to Executive Director and the petitioner was nominated as a director on the Board of the respondent-company. After he was nominated as the Director he was ill-treated in all possible ways by the then Managing Director. On 3-3-2004 petitioner was called by the then managing Director and was scolded in unparliamentary words. Petitioner was asked to sign his VRS application by threat and coercion. Petitioner signed his VRS application. It was accepted- An appeal was filed by the petitioner and the Government in its order reviewed the matter and ordered that the Managing Director has no power to accept the VRS application. Petitioner was reinstated. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court. Petitioner states that he is governed by the Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (Conduct and discipline) Rules, 1984 (for short, 'rules' ). Petitioner was nominated as one of the Directors on the Board of Directors by the State Government in terms of the Rules. Respondent is not the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner. Show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet has been issued in terms of the 1984 Rules. Petitioner was kept under suspension in terms of Annexure-H. Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Matter is pending. According to the petitioner, charge-sheet as well as the suspension orders are without any jurisdiction in terms of the rules as applicable to the facts of this case. With these facts petitioner is before me. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued and respondents have entered appearance. Detailed statement is filed by the respondents. Respondents justify their action. Respondents say that in terms of the Rules, petitioner can be suspended and also a notice can be issued in terms of the averments made in the objection statement. ( 4 ) SRI Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner. He invites my attention to the order of the Government dated 2-4-2004. Learned Counsel says that the petitioner is continued as Executive director on the Board of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, till such time as the Government takes a final decision. ( 4 ) SRI Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner. He invites my attention to the order of the Government dated 2-4-2004. Learned Counsel says that the petitioner is continued as Executive director on the Board of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, till such time as the Government takes a final decision. In the light of this order, according to the learned Counsel, the Managing Director has no power or jurisdiction to issue either charge-sheet or suspension order to the petitioner in terms of the material on record. Learned Counsel would further say only the Chairman who can initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Insofar as suspension order is concerned, he says that the same is not to be treated as part of disciplinary proceedings. In conclusion, he wants both the orders to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri R. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would invite my attention to Annexure-B in the matter of the power of the Managing Director. He would say that the managing Director is authorised to initiate disciplinary action including appointment of Enquiry Officer and forward the matter to the Chairman for his final decision. He invites my attention to the subsequent order of the Government in terms of Annexures-R1 to R3, dated 10-11-2004. He says that on the day when the notice was issued, petitioner ceased to be a Director and that therefore he was an employee in terms of the rules and action is permissible in terms of the Rules. He places before me a note sheet in which the Chairman has agreed for suspension pending enquiry. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) THE only question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the present orders issued are with jurisdiction or not in terms of the submissions. ( 8 ) ADMITTED facts reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a general Manager in terms of the order dated 9-3-1979. Thereafter petitioner was promoted as Director Technical. The Government also approved the promotion of the petitioner in terms of an order dated 14-9-2000. Petitioner was subsequently nominated as the Director on the Board and he was designated as Executive Director. A request was also made to the Government with regard to approval in the matter. Thereafter petitioner was promoted as Director Technical. The Government also approved the promotion of the petitioner in terms of an order dated 14-9-2000. Petitioner was subsequently nominated as the Director on the Board and he was designated as Executive Director. A request was also made to the Government with regard to approval in the matter. The government on 25-11-2003 upgraded the post of Technical Director into executive Director. Admitted facts would further reveal that the then managing Director accepted the VRS application from the petitioner and that was challenged in an appeal by the petitioner before the government. The Government by its order dated 2-4-2004 directed that the petitioner is to hold an independent charge of qualify control and ordered the petitioner to resume his work as Executive Director. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged. Thereafter a writ petition was filed in this Court and this granted an interim order. Subsequently, the government by its order dated 21-10-2004 ordered in exercise of its power under Articles of Association, modified the earlier order to the extent that the petitioner could not be in independent charge of the quality control. He is permitted to discharge his regular duties attached to the post. Thereafter the Government in terms of the notification dated 10-11-2004 reconstituted the Board of Directors and while reconstituting petitioner's name was omitted both non-official as well as official in terms of the notification. Therefore from 10-11-2004, petitioner ceases to be a Director in terms of the material on record. Once he ceases to be a Director, he cannot claim that he is not governed by the Rules of the company. It is seen from the material on record that the petitioner has been suspended in terms of the order dated 12-11-2004 being not a Director in terms of Rules of the Rules. ( 9 ) RULE 2{b) of the Rules provides for definitions and an employee has been defined to mean any person employed in the company other than government employees on deputation and those were covered by the standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) act, 1946. Admittedly, petitioner is an employee of the Company. Petitioner is not on deputation nor he is governed by the standing orders. Therefore, definition of the employee in terms of the Rules is clearly applicable to the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner is an employee of the Company. Petitioner is not on deputation nor he is governed by the standing orders. Therefore, definition of the employee in terms of the Rules is clearly applicable to the petitioner. Once the petitioner is an employee in terms of the Rules then he is governed by the said rules. Annexure-B to the Rules provides for disciplinary action. Admittedly petitioner falls under Clause II, that is a non-director post. Therefore, the disciplinary authority would be the Managing Director in terms of the material on record. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submission of the petitioner that despite the order dated 10-11-2004, he is still not governed by the Rules. The order dated 12-11-2004 is accepted as valid and legal. . . . The file discloses the approval of the chairman in terms of the Rules. ( 10 ) PETITIONER also questions the show-cause notice as without jurisdiction. It is seen from the material on record that the petitioner's post was upgraded from the post of Director Technical into Executive director of the respondent-Company. Annexure-B to the Rules provides for powers to the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. SI. No. 1 of Annexure-B provides for the Disciplinary Authority being the board in respect of a post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 2750-3250. Note 1 in Annexure-B to 1984 Rules provides for authorisation in favour of the managing Director to initiate disciplinary action including appointment of Enquiry Officer and reporting the matter to the Board for final decision to impose penalty. Though the petitioner was a Director, still in terms of Annexure-B to the Rules the Managing Director is authorised to issue show-cause notice. It is needless for me to say that the show-cause notice is a part of disciplinary action in the matter. As a matter of fact reply has also been filed and enquiry is pending. In these circumstances, the arguments of no power in terms of the show-cause notice does not appeal to me. A file is placed before me. The file discloses the approval of the Chairman in terms of the Rules. ( 11 ) AFTER the matter was reserved for orders, petitioner filed certain additional documents in support of his submission. In these circumstances, the arguments of no power in terms of the show-cause notice does not appeal to me. A file is placed before me. The file discloses the approval of the Chairman in terms of the Rules. ( 11 ) AFTER the matter was reserved for orders, petitioner filed certain additional documents in support of his submission. Petitioner has filed annexure-N, a letter by the Chief Secretary with regard to leadership by chairman of the Board and that the Chairman is not be burdened with any day-to-day functions. Annexure-P is a letter dated 7-5-2003 in the matter of duties and responsibilities of a Chairman, Chief Executives, and part time official and non-official Directors of Public Sector enterprises. Annexure-Q is the letter issued by the Additional Chief secretary and Principal Secretary to Government to the Chairman and managing Director of the Company. Petitioner also refers to the earlier proceedings to say that all executive powers vest with the Chief executive of the Company and the Chairman would preside over the board proceedings. I have already ruled that in terms of the Rules and the material on record, the Managing Director has the necessary power and jurisdiction in respect of the two orders challenged in this writ petition. ( 12 ) PETITIONER has also made allegations that the document evidencing the signature of the Chairman is a fabricated document for the purpose of this case. Sri Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel takes a strong objection for the allegation of fabrication. I am of the view that the document has come from a public body and the document submitted by the respondent cannot be in any away doubted. The charge of fabrication is serious in nature. No details are forthcoming in the affidavit. In these circumstances, I do not think that I should take this averment seriously. This averment is just for the purpose of rejection. ( 13 ) IN the result, petition stands dismissed. In the light of my finding on facts it is unnecessary for me to consider the case-laws as referred to by the learned Counsel. No costs. Petitioner is directed to co-operate in the enquiry for speedy disposal of the proceedings in his own interest. --- *** --- .