Manipur High Court: In a case wherein writ petition had been filed challenging the order terminating the service of the petitioner as the Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board (“MPCB”), a Single Judge Bench of Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.* dismissed the writ petition and opined that since the monthly emoluments given to the 118 employees appointed by the petitioner were above Rs. 3300, the petitioner was required to obtain prior sanction from the State Government before making such appointment in terms of the mandatory provisions under the proviso to Rule 23 of the Appointment of Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board, 2021.
Background
In the present case, by an order issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of MPCB and the term of the office of the Chairman of MPCB as provided under Section 5(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (“Act”) was of three years from the date of nomination. During the term of his office as the Chairman of MPCB, the petitioner issued various orders appointing as many as 118 employees on contract basis. During the tenure of the service of the petitioner as the Chairman of MPCB, the State Government issued a rule called Appointment of Chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board, 2021 (“Rules”). After the framing of the said Rule, the State Government issued an order re-constituting the MPCB consisting of 11 members including the petitioner as the Chairman of the said reconstituted board. The petitioner submitted that before completion of the tenure of his service of three years as provided under Section 5(1) of the Act and Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules, the State Government issued an order appointing Respondent 3 as the Chairman of MPCB with immediate effect and until further orders. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner assailed the appointment of Respondent 3 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by quashing the order and by giving liberty to the State Government to re-consider the case of the petitioner by following due procedure of law.
After the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the authorities of the State Government issued a Memorandum wherein allegations had been made against the petitioner that he made appointment against 118 posts in the MPCB without obtaining prior approval of the Government and without following due procedure for public employment and directed the petitioner to submit a written explanation as to why disciplinary action including civil and penal liabilities should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted that the board had absolute and unfettered power to create posts and make recruitment without seeking approval of the Government if financial burdens were taken by the board. After examining and considering the submissions by the petitioner, the authorities of the State Government issued an order thereby terminating the service of the petitioner as Chairman of MPCB with immediate effect and declaring that the post of Chairman, MPCB shall be deemed to be vacant with effect from the date of issuance of the said order. The State Government issued another order appointing Respondent 3 as the Chairman of MPCB with immediate effect and until further orders. Being aggrieved by the issuance of these two orders, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing the present writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the two orders.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
It was submitted that the tenure of service of the petitioner as Chairman of MPCB was of three years with effect from the date of appointment and thus, the State Government could not terminate his service before completion of the tenure of his service and the petitioner appointed all the 118 employees in the MPCB as per the direction given by the National Green Tribunal and in terms of the Convey Letter of the Government, therefore, he did not commit any illegality in making such appointment and as such, he could not be penalized by terminating his service. Further, it was submitted that the scale of Rs. 3300 as mentioned under proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules was increased under the Revision of Pay Rules issued by the Government. Since all the pay scale of the said 118 employees were below the revised pay scale, there were no requirements to obtain prior sanction of the Government before appointing them, especially when the Board has absolute and unfettered power to create posts and make recruitment without seeking approval of the Government if financial burdens were taken by the Board.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that under Section 5(3) of the Act, the Central Government or the State Government may remove any member of a Board before the expiry of his term of office after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same and under Section 6 of the Act, a member of a Board could be removed by the Central Government or the State Government if it was of the opinion that the member had so abused his position so as to render his continuance on the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same. The Court further noted that under the proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules, for the creation of an appointment to post in the scale, the maximum of which was above Rs. 3300 per month, the Board should obtain prior sanction from the Government.
The Court opined that since the monthly emoluments given to the said 118 employees were above Rs. 3300, the petitioner was required to obtain prior sanction from the State Government before making such appointment in terms of the mandatory provisions under the proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules. The Court further opined that the earlier writ petition was allowed by this Court by giving liberty to the State Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner by following due procedure of law contemplated under Section 5(3) or under Section 6(2) of the Act and in the present case, the authorities had acted in pursuance of the liberty given by this Court and the authorities strictly followed the due procedure of law provided under Section 5(3) or under Section 6(2) of the Act.
The Court further noted that all the appointment orders of the 118 employees were issued in 2018 whereas the order of the National Green Tribunal and the Convey Letter of the State Government were given in 2021. Therefore, the Court opined that there was a fallacy on ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner issued all the appointment orders as per direction given by the National Green Tribunal and in terms of the Convey Letter of the State Government.
The Court opined that as none of the posts held by 118 employees of the Board were included or mentioned in any of the Revision of Pay Rules produced by the petitioner, this Court was not inclined to accept the statement made by the petitioner that the Scale of Pay of Rs. 3300 mentioned in the proviso to Rules 23 of the Rules had been revised under various Revision of Pay Rules issued by the Government. Therefore, the Court dismissed the present writ petition as being devoid of merit.
[Laishram Radhakishore Singh v. State of Manipur, 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 94, decided on 14-3-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Jotendro;
Advocate Murtaza Ahmed;
For the Respondents: Addl. AG M. Devananda;
Senior Advocate H.S Paonam;
Advocate Jyotsana;
Advocate S. Gunabanta.
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh.
