ALOKE KUMAR SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner calls in question the impugned order of cancellation of nomination of petitioner from the post of Member, State Police Complaints Authority (State Level) and prays for quashing the order as contained in letter No.5111 dated 26.09.2016 vide Annexure-6 pertaining to such cancellation and further prayer has been made for direction to respondents for payment of entire salary and perks as admissible for the said post.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts as has been delineated in the writ application is that the petitioner was in the State Judicial Service and retired on 31.01.2009 from the post of District & Session Judge, Godda. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Jharkhand State Public Service Commission, vide notification No.1324 dated 25.02009 pursuant thereto, the petitioner gave his joining on the said post on 26.02009. Subsequently, the State Government by Notification No.2163 dated 13.04.2010 was pleased to appoint him as Acting Chairman of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining to the post of Acting Chairman on 15.04.2010. The petitioner demitted the office of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) on 05.01.2011, after attaining the age of 62 years. It has been stated in the writ application that vide letter dated 002011, the petitioner was informed that he was nominated as First Registrar of the newly established National University of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi (NUSRL) by the Hon'ble Chancellor. In pursuance to such nomination, the petitioner discharged his duties as Registrar of the Law University. Thereafter, petitioner was nominated as one of the Members of State Police Complaints Authority vide notification dated 28.03.2016 as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. In view of the said notification, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 29.03.2016 itself from the post of Registrar of NUSRL, Ranchi. His resignation being accepted by the competent authority, was duly communicated on 29.03.2016 issued by the Registrar General of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. The State Police Complaints Authority has been constituted by the State Government by a resolution dated 10.03.2016 in view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. with regard to police reforms in India and the resolution of the State Government has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. To the utter surprise and consternation, the nomination of the petitioner for the post of one of the Members of the Police Complaints Authority (State Level) was cancelled on the ground that his nomination is contravention of Article 319 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No.5111 dated 26.09.2016 Annexure-6 which is impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned notification dated 26.09.2016 vide Annexure-6 has been issued without compliance of principles of natural justice since no notice prior to the cancellation of the nomination of the petitioner was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law, illegal, malafide, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was never appointed rather he was nominated and his service is not under the employment of the State and there is no jurial relationship between the State Government and the petitioner, nor there is control by the State over the duties, power and functions as enshrined in the resolution whereby the Police Complaints Authority has been constituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with vehemence that respondents have misconstrued the purports and meaning of Article 319 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that clause 3 & 4 of the Resolution dated 10.02016 envisages that tenure of the independent member is for two years and the State Government has limited power to annul such nomination only if the members acquires any deficiency as enumerated under clause 4 of the said resolution. Since, the petitioner does not come under clause 4 of the ineligibility clause therefore, the impugned order is bereft of the sanction of law and has been issued without any authority of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the recommendation or suggestion by the Police Complaints Authority are binding upon the State Government therefore, it cannot be construed that the said authorities are under the control of the State and, therefore, Article 319 of the Constitution of India could not have been invoked even remotely in the instant case. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to (1979) 3 SCC 458 paragraph nos.7, 8 and 9 and also (2006) 8 SCC 1.