TILESHWAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification, contained in Memo No. 1437 dated 16th March, 2007 (Annexure -11), issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') with immediate effect, before expiry of the term of the office. In this case, the petitioner has raised several points for consideration before this Court.

(3.) MR . Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier was sought to be removed from the post of Chairman of the Board by Memo No. 5299 dated 3rd November, 2006, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6370 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 5th January, 2007 passed in the said writ petition, the said order of removal dated 3rd November, 2006 was quashed by this Court. This Court, infer alia, observed that once a Member of the Board is appointed by the state Government, it has no authority, whatsoever, to remove him prior to expiry of the tenure of three years without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing/showing cause. Learned Counsel submitted that in the said order, specific finding was recorded by this Court that the petitioner does not suffer disqualifications under Clause (c) or (d) of Sec. 6 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). It has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be removed by a cryptic order on the ground that his continuation as Chairman of the Board is contrary to public interest and affect the image as well as functioning of the Board without disclosing the reason as to how the continuation of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board is contrary to public interest only because of pendency of the criminal cases, though there are instances that the persons against whom criminal cases are pending have been appointed as Cabinet Ministers in the same Government. The removal of the petitioner is political -victimisation, as he was appointed by the previous government.