NARAYAN CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had been appointed as Managing Director of Orissa Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') challenges the order of the State Government cancelling his appointment as the Managing Director of the Corporation under Annexure 3 as well as the order posting him as General Manager of the Corporation, inter alia, on the ground that the orders are arbitrary and outcome of malice and positive act of vindictiveness on the part of the Chief Minister of Orissa, The petitioner prays for a direction to be posted as the Chief Executive of the Corporation and protection of his pay and should be paid arrear leave salary.

(2.) THE short facts are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Genera! Manager of the Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs. 1600/ -to Rs. 2150/ - in the year 1978. In 1983 the petitioner was made the Executive Director of the Corporation on an additional emolument of Rs. 300/ - per month. He was inducted as Director in the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 12 -10 -1984 and on 29 -1 -1985, he was promoted to the post of Chief Executive of the Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs 2500/ - to 3000/ - which was revised to Rs. 4500/ -to Rs. 5000/ -. He was appointed as Managing Director of the Corporation on 31 -1 -1986 and the scale of pay of the Managing Director was fixed at Rs. 5500/ -to Rs. 6000/ -. It is alleged in the writ application that after the election in the State in the year 1990; Janata Dal came to power and Shri Biju Patnaik assumed office as the Chief Minister of Orissa on 5 -3 -1990. The said Chief Minister held a review meeting of some of the Corporations in the public sector including the Orissa Mining Corporation. The petitioner further alleges that without h aving any information or records about, the petitioner's Corporation or without even asking for any explanation from the petitioner, he was asked by the Chief Minister in the said review meeting to put in his resignation. The petitioner has averred that on assumption of office as Chief Minister on 5 -3 -1990, he had never any occasion either to inspect the functioning of the Orissa Mining Corporation nor had he called for to scrutinise the records of the Corporation to ascertain and to know the functioning of the Corporation. It is further averred that during the petitioner's tenure as Managing Director, Orissa Minining Corporation had made substantial growth in turn -over and profits and while the turn -over was to the tune of Rs. 2508.36 lakhs in 1934 -85 by 1989 -90, the turn -over had been raised to Rs. 7971.00 lakhs with an increase of 208 per cent. Similarly the profits of the Corporation which was Rs. 136.67 lakhs in 1984 -85, by 1989 -90 it became Rs. 2988 lakhs. But on account of the direction of the Chief Minister in the so called review meeting as stated earlier, the petitioner put in his resignation on 14 -3 -1990 in deference to the wishess of the Chief Minister. Even though he wanted to have an interview with the Chief Minister, he was not granted such interview and on 16 -3 -1990, the appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director was cancelled which according to the petitioner is an arbitrary exercise of power without application of mind and outcome of prejudice and bias against the petitioner. After cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director, he was denoted by two grades and was posted as General Manager of the Corporation by order dated 30 -3 -1990. The petitioner made several representations stating therein that he is entitled to be posted as Chief Executive of the Corporation with protection of his pay last drawn, but the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the Chief Minister in a most high handed and arbitrary manner by only one word 'rubbish' which exhibits the bias of the Chief Minister against the petitioner. On the representation of the petitioner when the Secretary to the Government in the Steel and Mines Department put up a note that the petitioner should be posted as Executive Director with protection of his pay at Rs. 6000/ - and recomended that the representation of the petitioner deserves due consideration, the same was disposed of by the Chief Minister on 27 -5 -1991 with the order that either the petitioner joins as General Manager or goes out and this indicates the continuance and persistence of bias on the part of the Chief Minister towards the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner was deliberately transferred to a far off place like Jeypore only to harass him by an order dated 12 -7 -1991 eveven though no post of General Manager existed at Jeypore and vindictiveness on the part Of the Chief Minister is writ large from the tact that on 27 -7 -1991 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated to harass and malign the petitioner on a frivolous charge alleging that the petitioner has neglected his duties by not complying with the statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act so far as filing of the returns of the Corporation are concerned. The petitioner assailed the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding in O. J C. No. 5576/91 and this Court by order dated 6 -12 -1991 was pleased to stay the disciplinary proceeding and in the meantime the disciplinary proceeding has been dropoed by the Chairman of the Corporation by an order dated 26 -3 -1994. On 15 -5 - 1993. the petitioner made yet another representation requesting the Corporation to protect his last salary drawn and post him as the Chief Executive at Bhubaneswar in view of his ailing eye to facilitate the treatment, but that was rejected by order dated 26 -3 -1993 and the petitioner was intimated that his pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs. 3350/ - to Rs. 4500/ - and his prayer for being posted at Bhubaneswar was not granted. It was further averred that the Corporation on the petitioner's representation sought for advice of the Finance Department with regard to the fixation of the petitioner's pay and the Finance Department opined that the petitioner's pay would be notionally fixed which he would have drawn had he continued as the Chief Executive of the Corporation. Having lost all hopes in getting any redress from the Corporation as well as the State Government and having been convinced about the bias, vindictiveness and mala fide of the Chief Minister, he tiled the writ application on 20 -9 -1993 for the reliefs as already stated.

(3.) THE State of Orissa, opp. party No. 1 has filed an affidavit being sworn to by the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Steel and Mines Department stating therein that the substantive post of the petitioner in the Corporation was the post of General Manager and after cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as Managing Director in accordance with Article 40 of the Articles of Association, the only post to which the petitioner could have been posted is the post of General Manager. So far as the review meeting dated 13 -3 -1990 is concerned, the affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 states that there are no records in the department of Steel and Mines with regard to the proceeding of the said review meeting and on enquiry it was learnt that no records of the proceedings of the review meeting were drawn up. The said affidavit further states that so far as opinion of the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, opinion of the Advocate General, the same are merely advisory in nature and it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to take administrative decision. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the posting of the petitioner in the post of Chief Executive or any other post is under the jurisdiction of the Corporation and there is no scope in the Articles of Association or otherwise for the State Government to interfere with the orders of posting of its officers passed by the Corporation. Paragraph -10 of the affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Department of Steel and Mines on behalf of opp. party No. 1 is extracted hereinbelow in exteriso : '10. State Government submits posting of the petitioner in the post of Chief Executive or any other post is under the jurisdiction of the Corporation. There is no scope under the Articles of Association or otherwise for State Government to interfere with orders of posting of its officers passed by the Corporation.'