OKANGERING Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legitimacy of the Order appointing and Posting the petitioner as Chief Engineer-cum- Chairman of the Inter-Disciplinary Disaster Management Committee in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is the subject matter of adjudication in this proceeding which has arisen in the following circumstances: The Petitioner is a senior most Engineer serving in the State of Arunachal Pradesh holding the substantive post of Chief Engineer in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department under the State of Arunachal Pradesh. While the petitioner was working as such, by the impugned Notification bearing No GA-16/99/582/92 dated 27.3.99 the Petitioner was appointed as Chief Engineer-cum-Chairman of the Inter-Disciplinary Disaster Management. Committee for one year from the date of relief from the post. The order itself indicate that the rank and status of the Petitioner in the new assignment would be for all purposes equivalent to the rank and status of a Chief Engineer in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In view of the above, the department issued Notification No. SIFCO-46/96 dated 27.3.99 directing the Respondent No. 4 the senior most Superintendent Engineer (IFC) to discharge his duties of the Chief Engineer(IFC), without any extra remuneration, in addition to his own duties. On receipt of the above Notification Petitioner submitted a representation before the Chief Secretary on 1.4.99 stating therein that his posting and transfer to the above post will disrupt and upset the works so far done in the department and accordingly he demanded justice seeking for his continuance in the Department as Chief Engineer in the interest of all concerned. Since his representation was not attended to, the petitioner moved this Court by way of this Writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the above order. The Respondent, State of Arunachal Pradesh contested the case and supported the impugned order of posting the peitioner in the above post as legitimate and bonafide and also submitted its affidavit accordingly. The respondents stated that, to counter act the flood situation which brought catastrophe in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 1998, the State Government intended to launch an action plan like Disaster Management Plan (DMP) and also to rejuvenate the project the State authority through it fit to engage a whole time person having the requisite technical competence to reinforce the Committee and accordingly the impunged action was initiated. The Respondent, in clear term stated that the Petitioner will remain a part and parcel of the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control Department and shall draw the same pay and allowances and status like of a Chief Engineer. According to the Respondent, on their assessment the petitioner is endowed with the necessary technical competence and because of his ability and proficiency he was assigned to the said post. The State Government did not create any other post of Chief Engineer in the Department of IFC since the Petitioner would go back to his post after a year and discharge his full fledged function as Chief Engineer, IFC department but he was only given a more responsible assignment because of his better technical experience in flood damage works. The Respondents in its affidavit also sought clarify as to the circumstances which lead the department to allow the respondent No. 4 to assume the charge unilaterally. The Respondents in its affidavit indicated the fragile geological characteristic of the state which falls in heavy rainfal zone and the State is highly vulnerable to flood and landslides. The State in the past experienced devastating flood and landslides causing heavy damage and loss of life and property of the state and its citizens. In that view of the matter the state felt about the urgent functioning of the committee and therefore thought it fit for starting preventive measure from the flood havoc.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Phukan, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M Bhuyan, the learned counsel referred to the track record of the Petitioner in the Department and submitted that on account of his service profile the Petitioner was atleast entitled for a better treatment from the department instead of it. Learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed cut that the order was passed on 27.3.99 and the Petitioner submitted its representation before the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 1.4.99 but, without attending his representation the Respondents in most illegal fashion unilaterally sought to take over the charge by not following the basic norms. Mr. Phukan, the learned counsel has submitted that the above move was taken not only over awe the Petitioner but also is reflected the malafide of the Respondents with a view to get rid of the Petitioner by replacing him by a person of their own choice. Mr Phukan, the learned counsel also submitted that Respondent No. 4 is only holding a substantive post of Executive Engineer and working in the capacity of Superintending Engineer as an adhoc measure who is ill suited to hold such an important assignment. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr Phukan referring to the Fundamental Rules and subsidiary Rules submitted that the above appointment is only a ruse to do away with the Petitioner and put a plaint substitute. Mr Phukan did not dispute the power and authority of the Respondents in the matter of transfer and posting of an officer from one post to another. The learned Counsel further submitted that the order though seemingly is of innocuous in nature but when the surrounding circumstances are look into by lifting the veil, the order of transfer unerringly points out that a situation was created only to get rid of an unrelenting but unpretentious officer. What is apparent is not the real, submitted the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Phukan.

(3.) Mr. N. N. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. H. Roy, the learned Sr. Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh took pain by referring to the materials on record and in support of the decision Mr. Saikia pointed to the background history of the flood situation of the state. Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel submitted that recurrence of the flood in the state is the subject matter which perturbed all concerned. With a view to grapple and curb the recurrence of the menace of flood the State Government initiated a scheme for the protection of the State as far back as on 1998 and constituted an Inter- Disciplinary Disaster Management Plan(DMP) to suggest detailed action plans on damages caused by natural calamities, more particularly floods and landslides, and recommend preventive, corrective, scientific and relief measures to mitigate the hardship and financial loss suffered by the state and its people. Earlier a Development Commissioner, an officer of IAS cadre serving in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was appointed as Chairman of the said committee for the purpose of drawing and preparation of such plan. In view of the transfer of the aforesaid officer the activities of the above committee could not be pursued. By order dated 14.1.98 Secretary in the Department of Science & Technology, Government of Arunachal Pradesh was appointed as convenor for the study and preparation of the draft plan. In view of its own priority it thought to appoint a full time officer of senior level with requisite technical competence to head the committee to ensure preparation of Disaster Management Plan and therefore keeping in mind the public interest and efficacy of the Scheme appointed the Petitioner in the said post. Mr Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh submitted that it is within the competence of the State to appoint and post its officers and utilise their services to the best of its ability and to cause in a most efficient way. The State Government recognising the ability of the Petitioner thought it fit to man the post by appointing the Petitioner therefore, there can not be any room to treat the impugned order as arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, submitted the learned counsel.