S K JAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope, object and extent of AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM the most important constituent of the principle of the natural justice is required to be considered and applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Whether such a principle can be made available to a usurper of a public office is another question connected with the application of the aforesaid principles. The question is dependent upon the determination of disqualification attached to the office of Chairman, Vice Chairman or Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal upon his cessation to hold the office and the interpretation of such disqualification is again dependent upon the meanings of the word, "employment under Government of India or under the Government of the State."

(2.) In order to effectively adjudicate the issues noted in the proceeding para, a reference is necessary to the facts of the case which are mostly admitted or deemed to be admitted by implication. The petitioner who is a law-graduate, while in service as District and Sessions Judge was selected for appointment as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in April, 1989. He retired as such Member on 2.1.1994 after completion of the term under the Administrative Tribunal Act (for short the 'Act'). He was appointed as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab on 9.8.1995. His appointment as Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, was revoked and cancelled vide order dated 19.1.1996 (Annexure P/5) with immediate effect. The appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and affording him any opportunity of being heard. No reason has been assigned for passing the impugned order which has been termed by the petitioner to be a non speaking order. It is contended that the impugned order has been issued on account of the changed political situation in the State of Punjab. The petitioner has claimed that his appointment was made when the ministry headed by late S. Beant Singh was b power while the order of revocation and cancellation has been issued by the ministry headed by Shri H.S. Brar as Chief Minister of Punjab. The change of political scenario is stated to be the cause of passing the impugned order.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner was not justified in alleging that the impugned order was the out-come of change in political scenario in the State of Punjab. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed by the then Chief Minister S. Beant Singh and relieved during the period of Chief Ministership of S. H.S. Brar. There being no political interference, motive or influence in the decision relieving the petitioner. It is stated that record of the case reveals that Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Rai (Retired) resigned as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal w.e.f. 31.12.1994. The answering respondent sent a requisition to the Hon'ble High Court to recommend a panel of eligible candidates for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. On 4.2.1995, the Hon'ble Chief Justice recommended the name of Shri M.S. Lobana, the then District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for the post. The name of the petitioner was never recom, mended by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The petitioner is alleged to have got his appointment straight from the Chief Minister on 75.1995. The petitioner is alleged to have failed to bring to the notice of the then Chief Minister the statutory provisions of the Act, particularly Section 11 read with Section 3(T) which made him ineligible for appointment to the post of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The appointment of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was allegedly brought to the notice of the Government by numerous representations made by Unions like Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and Mazdoor Ekta Union, Amritsar on 20.9.1995. Another representation purported to have been made by some lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also received on 11.10.1995. The opinion of the Legal Rememberancer, Punjab was obtained. One such complaint was sent to the Lok Pal of Punjab who forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary on 2.11.1995. After getting the requisite information and considering all legal aspects, the impugned order Annexure P/5 was passed. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioner particularly when his name was not recommended even by the High Court. The allegations of mala-fide have vehemently been denied. It is stated that the representations were not allegedly obtained motivatedly. The rule of hire and fire, as alleged, has not been applied by the respondents in the case of the petitioner. They have meticulously followed the principles laid down by the Apex Couri in making such like appointments. The petitioner is admitted to have been appointed as Presiding Officer on 9.8.1995 in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act and was allowed a basic pay of Rs.2000/- p.m. minus gross pension provisionally. The writ petition ia stated to be mis-conceived and not maintainable.