JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of his removal vide Notification No.LSWC-31/2010/8168 dated 09.5.2012 and subsequent corrigendum vide Notification No.LSWC- 31/2010/8251/FS&CW dated 10.5.2012 as under Annexures-12 and 13 passed by the State of Orissa removing the petitioner from the post of the President of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

(2.) Facts of the case as reveals from the Writ petition is that the petitioner after retirement from his post as a Judge of the High Court of Orissa was selected to hold the post of President of the Orissa State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission following the provisions contained in Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It is alleged by the petitioner that while the petitioner was continuing in the post of President of the Orissa State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ,a Writ petition in the guise of a Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2010 making therein the following prayer:

(3.) The allegation of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner being a President of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum being appointed under the provision of Section 16(I)(a) of The Consumer Protection Act,1986 even though the Act has no provision for dealing with the allegations against the President of a State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum but following the provisions contained in Rule 6 (5)(h) and the proviso as contained therein, no President of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission shall be removed from his office except by an order made by the State Government on the grounds specified in Clause (f)(g)(h) and (i) of the above Rule and after an enquiry held by a sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa ,in which the President of the State Commission, as the case may be, has been informed all the charges against him and giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and found guilty. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that there is no enquiry on the allegations against the President of the State Commission by a sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the said High Court, the impugned order of removal is per se bad. The next submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugned order of termination also suffers on account of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned order being passed merely based on a report submitted by the Registrar (Inspection and Enquiry) of the High Court of Orissa, is no report in the matter of an enquiry in the case of a President of the State Commission in terms of Rule 6(5)(h) read with proviso therein and thus contended for setting aside of the impugned order on all the three premises stated herein above.