MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. JAGADINDRA ARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal has been filed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Board ('MSEB' for short), a Board duly constituted under S.5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. (hereinafter referred to as the "Electricity Act") challenging the judgment and order dated 22-7-1999 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati, Bench at Shillong in Writ Appeal No. 19 (SH) of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of learned single Judge dismissing the writ. petition filed by the respondent-employee challenging an order dated 24-7-1997 of compulsory retirement from service. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents by order dated 10-8-1998 by holding that the MSEB had not framed any regulations regulating the service conditions of its employees and had instead adopted the Assam State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1960 by passing a resolution on 17-5-1975. Similarly, it was also open to the Board to adopt the provisions of FR 57(b) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules for compulsory retirement by passing resolution. He further held that it was clear in the Office Memorandum dated 6- 10-1989 of the MSEB that the said Board has adopted the orders contained in the Office Memorandum dated 21-7-1988 of the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel and AR (A) Department, for compulsory retirement of its employees in accordance with FR57(b) of the FR and SR, 1984. The learned Judge also held that the respondent had not made out any case of mala fide and there was no evidence of arbitrariness. For this he himself perused the service records of the respondent herein and found that he had been given the lowest grading of "D," his performance had not been satisfactory and that he had become a dead-wood for the organisation.

(3.) In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the. judgment by holding that MSEB had no authority or power to compulsorily retire its employees prior to the coming into force of the MSEB (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996 which were published in the Gazette on 1-9-1997. The Court held that prior to this date, there was no provision for compulsury retirement except by way of major punishment. The Court further held that office memo of the MSEB dated 10-5-1989 only adopts the procedure prescribed by the Government of Meghalaya by office memo dated 21-7-1988. The said memo "does not vest any power in the Government to compulsory retire its employees."