GOUR CHAN DRASARKAR Vs. STATE ELECTRICLTY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rules issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been treated to be in our list for hearing and disposal as prayed for by the learned Advocates of the parties. All these Rules have been heard together as they raise a common question of law, namely, whether Regulation 34 of the West Bengal State Electricity Board employees Service Regulations, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations", is invalid and void.

(2.) EXCEPT the petitioner, Sri Gour Chandra Sarkar, in C. R. No. 6058 (w) of 1984, the other petitioners are the regular permanent employees of the West Bengal State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as "the Board". The petitioner, Gour Chandra Sarkar, who was a nongazetted permanent staff under the Electricity Development Directorate, Government of West Bengal was transferred on deputation to the West Bengal State Electricity Board. He is now the Deputy Secretary, Generation and Transmission Wing of the Board. The other petitioners also hold high and responsible positions in the Board. While the petitioners had been working in their respective posts, the Secretary of the Board issued orders, all dated March 22,1984, terminating the services of the petitioners with immediate effect on payment of three months salary in lieu of three months' notice. The orders of termination issued to the petitioners being verbatim the same, west out below one of such orders of termination that was issued to. the said ,gour Chandra Sarkar: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_5_TLCAL0_1985Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THERE can be no doubt that the said order is an order of termination simplicitor and does not contain any stigma against the employee concerned or any reason for such termination. In the affidavit- in- opposition affirmed on behalf of the Board by Sri S. N. Menon the Secretary and filed in each of these Rules, there is a general statement in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, inter alia , that after the re constitution of the Board with Shri A. Ghatak as the Chairman, a review was made on performances of the officers and employees of the Board. Further, it is stated that in the course of review of such performances, it has been ascertained in several cases that various irregularities have been committed and substantial losses have been occasioned to the Board in the manner in which some officers and employees holding important posts have discharged their duties, raising well justified suspicion about the propriety of the manner of performances in case of such officers and employees. After full, bona fide and dispassionate consideration of the matters and on the basis of records, the Board had decided with an open mind that it was not desirable to continue with the services of some such officers. The service regulations of the Board confers power on the Management to terminate the services of a permanent employee on three months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu of such notice. It was honestly felt that in the interest of the Board and in public interest, it would not be proper and suitable that such officers employees should be continued in service. In the circumstances, without deciding on the question of guilt of such officers | employees, in whom the Board lost" 'its confidence and who were not found suitable, their conduct being not good and not satisfactory which will appear from the records, and without imposing any punishment, the Board at the highest level, namely, through the Chairman and the Secretary exercised its powers bona fide under the said Regulation 34. It has been asserted inter alia by the deponent of the affidavit who is the Secretary of the Board, that in the discharge of his duties and functions, he has acted absolutely bona fide and only in the interest of the Board, and that whatever decision and action he has taken has been approved by the Chairman. Further, it has been averred that the concerned petitioner is one of the officers in respect of whom an order for termination of his service was issued in the circumstances aforesaid. In other paragraphs of the affidavits- in- opposition, some allegations have been made against the conduct of the petitioner concerned justifying the order of termination of his services. At this stage, it is not necessary to refer to these allegations made against each of the petitioner.