RAMPALAKRAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Sunar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Meghalaya State Electricity Board (for short "the Board").

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned office order dated 19.4.97 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3. By the said order, the petitioner No. 1 who was working as Lineman Gr. I under the Board, alongwith one another employees, was compulsorily retired from the Board's service on this attaining the age of 50 (fifty) years or completing more than 25 (twenty five) years of continuous service in the Board with effect from 1.3.97 in terms of the provision of Fundamental Rule 57(b) of the State Govt. of Meghalaya. This said impugned order may be extracted as under:-

(3.) The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he joined the service under the erstwhile Shillong Hydro Electric Co. Ltd. in the year 1969 and after taking over of the said company by the Board in the year 1977, he had since been working under the Board. Initially he was working as Lineman Grade-II but on 25.6.93 he was promoted to the rank of Lineman, Grade-I. While he had been serving the Board in the said capacity, suddenly without any notice the impugned office order was passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner No. 1 from his service. His sole grievance raised in this writ petition is that this impugned order was passed by way of punishment and without following the procedure prescribed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996 (for short "the Regulation") which came into force with effect from 9.1.97 from the date of publication of the same in the Official Gazette of Meghalaya. As such, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was hit by arbitrariness, malafide and also the principle of natural justice and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.