STATE OF KERALA Vs. DR. P. KUMARASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the court was delivered by Khalid, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment in O. P. No. 5109 of 1981.Theappellants are the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Planning and Economic Affairs Department; the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, Kerala, represented by its Registrar (hereinafter called the 'Centre'), and Shri G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, I.A.S., Special Secretary, Irrigation and Rehabilitation Department. The respondent is the petitioner Dr. P. Kumaraswamy. The prayers in the petition were to quash Ext. P-6 by which the services of the respondent were terminated, to declare R.17 of the G.W.R.D.M. Rules as ultra vires Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution and for other consequential directions. The learned Judge who disposed of the petition quashed Ext. P-6, the order of termination on the ground that it was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore void in law. It was held to be non est and it was directed that the respondent would be entitled to continue in his position as Executive Director of the Centre. The prayer to strike down R.17 was not granted. In the course of the judgment, the learned Judge held that the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management was an 'authority' within Art.12 of the Constitution. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared for the appellants contended that the Centre was not an authority within Art.12 of the Constitution, that Ext. P-6 order was an order of 'termination simpliciter' under the relevant rules governing the service conditions of the respondent and was not in any manner violative of any law or opposed to principles of natural justice.

(2.) The facts of the case: The respondent was working as Director of the Institute of Hydraulics and Hydrology, Poondi under the administrative control of the Tamil Nadu Government. He is an eminent scientist with many reputed performances to his credit and is a highly qualified scientist. He had a brilliant academic career. As the Head of the Institute he could have continued in service till he attained the age of 58 and had the prospect of being promoted to the post of Chief Engineer of the Poondi Institute if he had continued there. The Government of Kerala was in search of a reputed scientist to be appointed as the Executive Director of the Centre to succeed Dr. C. M. Jacob on his retirement. Dr. P. K. Gopalakrishnan, the 4th respondent in the O. P., went to Madras and to Poondi to persuade the respondent to leave the Government of Tamil Nadu service on voluntary retirement and to take up the assignment of the Executive Director of the Centre. He was offered a salary of Rs. 3,000 per mensem, service till he attained the age of 60, a promise that his pension and gratuity on voluntary retirement from the Tamil Nadu Government service would not be deducted from his salary in the Centre, chat he would be provided with free furnished accommodation or house rent allowance of not less than Rs. 500 and a car with certain conditions. He was not given to understand that he was being offered a temporary employment under the Centre. Everyone concerned understood it to be a permanent post. He left the service under the Tamil Nadu Government. Originally, he was required to accept the post of head of the Academic Divisions on a salary of Rs. 2,500. Ext. P1 is the copy of the appointment order. He would be the 2nd ranking officer in the Centre just below the Executive Director. Subsequently, by Ext. P-4 order he was appointed as Director of the Centre and the said order was corrected by Ext. P-5 order substituting the word Executive Director in Ext. P-5 for the word Director in Ext. P-4.According to him, he found the administration of the Centre in complete disarray when he assumed charge of the Centre and he went about enforcing discipline in the Centre vigorously. This irritated some important persons in the Centre. Some petitions containing allegations against him were sent to the Minister and the members of the Governing Body. The Minister in his capacity as Chairman requested Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai to look into the matter and informed the Centre to allow Mr. Pillai to have access to the necessary files. Subsequently a meeting of the Executive Committee was held. On 23rd September 1981, the petitioner left for Kottayam for an inspection. He had sent a copy of the tour programme to the Chairman before he left. There were costly equipments and valuable books belonging to him in his room at the Centre. On 24th September 1981, when the petitioner returned to the guest house at Kottayam, Shri K. J. Mathew, a Deputy Secretary of the Planning Department, who was deputed as a special messenger served a copy of the order Ext. P-6 terminating his services, at 8.15 p. m. This, in short, is the background leading to the institution of the petition.

(3.) The grounds taken in the petition are: (1) Ext. P-6 order is arbitrary and illegal, (2) R.17 to the extent to which it provides for termination of service of unconfirmed employees without notice, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution, (3) Ext. P-6 assumes that the respondent is a temporary employee. Even so temporary employees are entitled to reasonable notice and disclosure of reasons for termination of service, (4) the manner in which Ext. P-6 order was served on the petitioner smacks of mala fides. The subsequent action taken in dealing with the belongings of the respondents confirms this, (5) the appellants are bound by promissory estoppel.