LexWEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. versus DESH BANDHU GHOSH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B D E F G ll WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. v. DESH BANDHU GHOSH AND ORS. 0. Cl!INNAPPA R. B. MISRA, JJ, February 26, 1985 REDDY, E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND Adminl•tratlre Law- West Bengal State Electricity Board Reg•latlan" Regulation 34-Regu- latJ"on conferred full power on employer to terminate services of permanent employee by serving 3 months notice or salary in lieu thereaf-No guidelines provided for the exercise of such power-Held, Re1Mlatlon is arbitrary and offend• Art. 14. First Paragraph of Regulation 34 of West Bengal State Electricity Board Regulations provides that in case of a permanent employee his services may be terminated by serving 3 months notice or on payment of salary for tho corresponding period ia lieu thereof; The Secretary of the appellant-Board terminated the services of first respondent, a permanent employee with immediate effect on payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months notice without giving any reasons under Regulation 34 of the Board's Regulatioos. There was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to lhe res~ pondent. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the impugned order. The High Court came to the conclusion that Regulation 34 was arbitrary in nature and suffered from the vice of enabling discrirnination and therefore it struck down the first paragraph of Regulation 34 and as a consequence quashed the order terminating the services of the first respondent. Ia an appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that section !SA and 19 of the Electricity Supply Act laid down sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power under Regulation 34 and in any case the power to terminate tho services of a permanent employee was vested in higher ranking officials and might be expected to be exercised in a reasonable way and therefore Regulation 34 did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. t ' . r l ' STATE BLECI'IUC!Tl! BOARD v. D. B. GHOSH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 1015 Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Article 14 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Cou;t and conrerment and exercise of arbitrary power on and by the State or its instrumentalities have been frowned upon and struck down by this Court as offending Article 14. [10170] In the instant case, on the face of it the Regulation is totally arbitrary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination. It is a naked 'hire and fire' rule, the time for banishing which altogether from employer~employee relationship is fast approaching. Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII class so familiar to administrative lawyers. [1017E·F] Workman, Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 2SI, followed. S.S. Muley v. J. R. D. Tata and Ors .• [1979) 2 S. L. R. 438, approved. A B c Moti Ram Deka v. Nort~ East Frontier Railway, AIR 1964, SC 600, D referred to. Manohar P. Kharkhar v. Raghuraj, [1981] II L. L. J. 4S9, overruled. CIVIL APPE~LATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 562 of 1985. From the Judgment and Order dated the 28th January, !985 of the Calcutta High Court in F. M. A. T. No. 970 of 1984. Somnath Chatterjee, H. K. Puri for the Appellants. S. N. Kacker, A. K. Ganguli for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted. The West Bengal State Electricity Board is the principal appe- llant in this appeal by special leave which we have just now granted. The first respondent, a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board, filed the writ petition out of which the appeal arises in the Calcutta High Court to quash an order dated March 22, 1984 of the Secretary, West Bengal State,,Electticity E F G H A B c D E F 1016 SUPRBMI! COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R. Board terminating his services as Deputy Secretary with immediate effect on payment of three month's salary in lieu of three month's notice. The order gave no reasons for terminating the services of the respondent and there was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to the respondent. Apparently the order was made under Regulation 34 of the Board's Regulations which enables the Board to terminate the services of any permanent employee 'by serving three months' notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu there-of'. The High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.