G S OBEROI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the notification dated 26th February, 1996, issued by the Government of Punjab, superseding the Punjab Pollution Control Board (for short 'the Board') is illegal and arbitrary and whether the petitioner is entitled to continue as Chairman of the Board are the twin issues which arise for adjudication in this writ petition.

(2.) The respondent -Board has been constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974') and it is deemed to be a Board constituted under Section 4 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1981'). Shri F. L. Kansal, Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Public Health) who was working as Chairman of the respondent Board was repatriated to his parent department by an order dated 13-8-1993 issued by the Governor of Punjab. By that very order, the services of the petitioner, who was working as Chief Engineer, Punjab, P.W.D. (Public Health) were transferred to the Science and Technology Department for his appointment as Chairman of the Board. On 16-8-1993, the Governor of Punjab appointed the petitioner as whole-time Chairman of the Board under the Acts of 1974 and 1981. Vide order dated 22nd September, 1994, he was absorbed permanently as Chairman with immediate effect. After about two years of the Petitioner's absorption in the service of the Board, a proposal was made by the Department of Public Health (B and R II Branch) for his retirement as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 16-8-1993 and modification of the order dated 22nd September, 1994, in order to facilitate the petitioner's permanent absorption in the service of the Board w.e.f. 16-8-1993. On 16-8-1995, the Government revised the order dated 22-9-1994 and absorbed the petitioner permanently as Chairman of the Board w.e.f. 16-8-1993. On 1-3-1996, the Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Public Health, issued notification annexure P-12, retiring the petitioner as Chief Engineer, Public Health w.e.f. 16-8-1993 (F. N.) i.e. the date of his permanent absorption in the services of the Board as its Chairman. After about two years and six months of the absorption of the petitioner's service in the Board, Governor of Punjab issued the impugned notification superseding the Board in exercise of his powers under Section 62(1)(b) read with Section 61(2)(a) of the Act of 1974 and Section 47 (1)(b) and 2(a) of the Act of 1981. The background of the impugned notification is that several complaints were received by the Government of Punjab about the mal-administration of the Board. One enquiry was entrusted to the Vigilance Department Punjab. The other was got conducted through Shri M. L. Sharma, Officer on Special Duty to the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab. In his report dated 7-2-1996, M. L. Sharma pointed out several omissions and commissions of the Chairman and the officers of the Board. The Chief Minister, who also happens to be the Minister of the concerned department, considered the report of Shri M. L. Sharma and expressed the view that the circumstances exist which necessitate the supersession of the Board. Accordingly, he directed that the Board be superseded with immediate effect.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned notification on the following grounds :(a) The notification issued by the Government for superseding the Board is void ab initio because it is contrary to Section 62 (1)(a) of 1974 Act read with Section 47 (1)(a) of 1981 Act and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's assertion is that no action oriented notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him before the issuance of the impugned notification.(b) The Government has relied on the report prepared by Shri M. L. Sharma without disclosing it to the petitioner and, therefore, its decision to supersede the Board is against the principles of natural justice.(c) Even if the action has been taken under Section 62 (1)(b) of 1974 Act and Section 47 (1)(b) of 1981 Act, the respondent No. 1 was duty bound to hold an inquiry and hear the petitioner before the Board could be superseded.(d) The supersession of the Board is vitiated due to mala fides and bias.(e) If the supersession of the Board is held to be legally justified, then the petitioner should be reverted back to the post of Chief Engineer.