Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 178 (GAU)

Oinam Dhaneswar Singh v. State of Manipur

2006-02-23

M.B.K.SINGH

body2006
This is to dispose of W.P(C) Nos. 923 of 2005, 938 of 2005 and 995 of 2005, in which issues involved are inter-related, and these cases have been heard and proceeded jointly. 2. I have heard Mr. H. Nk Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Babulindro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr. Suresh Sarangthem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-1 and 3, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, it is ascertained that under an order issued by and in the name of the Governor, Manipur bearing No. 14(4)94-IND/689, dated 28.8.2004, the service of Mr. O. Dhaneswar Singh, APO(Sugar), Directorate of Commerce and Industries Department, Manipur was utilized as Chief Executive Officer of Manipur Khadi & Village Industries Board, Manipur in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration w.e.f. the date he joined duty until further orders. Under the same order the said O. Dhaneswar, who is the petitioner in all the above referred cases and hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner, took charge of the Chief Executive Officer, in short, C.E.O. of Manipur, Khadi & Village Industries Board, in short, MKVIB from one Md. Afzal Ali. Then on 11.8.05, another order of the Governor, Manipur being No. 14/4/94- IND was issued withdrawing the service of the writ petitioner from MKVIB with immediate effect and posting him in the Directorate of Commerce and Industries. 4. In Writ Petition(C) No. 923 of 2005, the writ petitioner is challenging the said order of the Governor of Manipur dated 11.8.05 mainly on the ground that it is the one passed in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82. The said office Memorandum dated 24.7.82 is in the form of administrative instructions issued purportedly in order to avoid frequent transfers and posting in all Government offices in Manipur. This Court, vide order passed on 29.8.2005 in the writ petition(C) No. 923 of 2005 suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 11.8.05 till returnable date and the same was extended until further orders vide order passed in the same case on 3.10.05. 5. This Court, vide order passed on 29.8.2005 in the writ petition(C) No. 923 of 2005 suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 11.8.05 till returnable date and the same was extended until further orders vide order passed in the same case on 3.10.05. 5. In W.P(C) No. 938 of 2005, the writ petitioner is challenging the legality of the order of the Governor of Manipur being No. 14/4/94-IND dated 29.8.05 by which in supersession of all the previous orders in this regard and in exercise of the powers conferred upon him in sub section(2) of section 13 of the Manipur Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1966, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to allow Shri L. Beikul Singh, Development Officer, MKVIB, hereinafter referred to as the private respondent in this case, to look after the work of the Chief Executive Officer of the MKVIB in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration with immediate effect until further orders. According to the writ petitioner, the said order dated 29.8.05 is one passed in violation of the said Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82. This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 29.8.2005 vide orders passed on 5.9.05 and 28.9.05. 6. In W.P(C) No. 995 of 2005, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the release order dated 29.8.05 issued by the Chairman, MKVIB, releasing the writ petitioner from MKVIB purportedly on his own request made by his letter dated 12.8.05 for enabling him to join to his parent department in pursuance of the Government order No. 14/4/94-IND dated 29.8.05 appointing the private respondents to look after the works of Chief Executive Officer, MKVIB. According to the writ petitioner, the said release order dated 29.8.05 is a back dated order issued to defeat all interim orders issued by this Court in two other writ petitions mentioned above. 7. The main cause of grievances of the writ petitioners leading to the filing of the above said three writ petitions is the impugned order of the Governor, Manipur dated 11.8.2005 by which the service of the writ petitioner was withdrawn from MKVIB with immediate effect. 7. The main cause of grievances of the writ petitioners leading to the filing of the above said three writ petitions is the impugned order of the Governor, Manipur dated 11.8.2005 by which the service of the writ petitioner was withdrawn from MKVIB with immediate effect. According to the writ petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.8.05 is violative of the Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82 because at the time when the impugned order dated 11.8.05 was passed, the service of the writ petitioner had not been utilized as Chief Executive Officer, MKVIB even for a period of one year and as such by withdrawing his service, the provisions of the said Office Memorandum dated 24.76.82 prohibiting transfer of an employee before completion of three years in a post, in the absence of compelling reasons to do so, has been violated. It has also brought to my notice that as per the said Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82 transfers should normally be effective in April/ May just after completion of financial year so that disruption of work is normal and transfer during the remaining months of the year should be resorted to in exceptional cases. 8. There is no dispute that MKVIB is a body corporate established under the Manipur Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1966 for the purposes specified in the Act. Its position and status cannot be equated to that of a Government department. Accordingly, in my opinion, the said Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82 issued by the Commissioner (DP), Govt. of Manipur for guidance of Government departments will not be applicable to the officers and servants of MKVIB. At the same time, it is to be noted that the said office Memorandum has no statutory force and as such it cannot be enforced though a Court. 9. As per provisions of section 13(2) of the said Act, the Governor shall appoint a person in not being a Member, to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed or as may be delegated to him by the Chairman. There is no statutory requirement that a person once appointed as the Chief Executive officer of MKVIB should serve as such for any particular period. There is no statutory requirement that a person once appointed as the Chief Executive officer of MKVIB should serve as such for any particular period. By issuing the said order dated 28.8.04, the Governor of Manipur, in effect, appointed the writ petitioner as Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB. The said appointment made by the Governor of Manipur was made in exercise of statutory powers given by section 13(2) of the MKVIB Act and such an appointment cannot be considered as transfer of a Government employee from a Government department to another Government Department merely on the ground that the appointee happened to be a Government employee at the relevant time. Further, by issuing the impugned order dated 11.8.05, the Governor of Manipur, in effect, put an end to the said appointment by withdrawing the service of the writ petitioner from MKVIB with immediate effect. In other words, by issuing the impugned order dated 11.8.05, the Governor of Manipur terminated the writ petitioner from being Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB. Consequent upon putting to an end of the said office Memorandum as Chief Executive Officer, the writ petitioner was posted in his parent department, i.e., Directorate of Commerce & Industries with immediate effect. 10. In my considered opinion, in the light of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 11.8.05 is not liable to be interfered with on the ground of the alleged violation of the said office memorandum dated 24.7.82 inasmuch as it is not applicable in the case of appointment for termination of an officer or servants of MKVIB made by the Governor of the State in exercise of his powers under the MKVIB Act. The Governor of the State is in the best position to determine the propriety of utilizing the service of the writ petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB for a period less then one year or more than 3 years. This Court is not to interfere with the pleasure of the Governor in that regard in the absence of sufficient, valid and legal reasons warranting interference with it. No legally protected interest of the writ petitioner can be said to have been affected by the impugned order dated 11.8.05. It is also to be noted that the said Memorandum dated 24.7.82 has no statutory force and as such it is not forceable in a Court of law. No legally protected interest of the writ petitioner can be said to have been affected by the impugned order dated 11.8.05. It is also to be noted that the said Memorandum dated 24.7.82 has no statutory force and as such it is not forceable in a Court of law. There is nothing to show that the Governor exercised his power of putting an end to the appointment of the writ petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer by issuing the impugned order dated 11.8.05 malafidely arbitrarily or illegally. 11. In the result, the impugned order dated 11.8.05 is not to be interfered with. The prayer of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 923 of 2005 is hereby rejected. 12. In the light of the above considerations, I do not find sufficient ground for concluding that the order of the Governor of the State passed on 29.8.05 allowing the private respondent to look after the work of the Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB is illegal. The said order was purportedly issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon him under sub section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act. The said order issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of his statutory powers cannot be considered as illegal on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 24.7.82 which has no statutory force and cannot be considered as applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.8.05 allowing the private respondent to look after the work of Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB with immediate effect is not interfered with. The prayer of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 938 of 2005 is hereby rejected. 13. The order dated 29.8.05 issued by the Chairman; MKVIB is one releasing the writ petitioner from the MKVIB for enabling him to join to his parent department. This order is consequential to the order dated 11.8.05 and order dated 29.8.05 issued by the Governor of the State posting the writ petitioner in the Directorate of Commerce and Industries after withdrawing his service from MKVIB and allowing the private respondent to look after the work of the Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB respectively. This order is consequential to the order dated 11.8.05 and order dated 29.8.05 issued by the Governor of the State posting the writ petitioner in the Directorate of Commerce and Industries after withdrawing his service from MKVIB and allowing the private respondent to look after the work of the Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB respectively. It is also ascertained that the Governor of the State issued the said order dated 11.8.2005 and 29.8.05 in exercise of his statutory powers confers by sub section (2) of section 13 of the said Act. Keeping in view the facts of withdrawal of the service of the writ petitioner from MKVIB and appointment of the private respondent to look after the work of Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB with immediate effect, the impugned release order dated 29.8.05 releasing the writ petitioner from MKVIB was issued by the Chairman as a follow up necessary action purportedly without having any knowledge of the interim orders of this Court. 14. There is an allegation from the side of the writ petitioner to the effect that the impugned release order dated 29.8.05 was issued back dated in order to defeat all interim orders passed by this Court. However, on the basis of the materials before the Court, I am not satisfied that the impugned release order dated 29.8.05 was issued back dated in order to defeat all interim orders by this Court. There is no any valid and legal reason for interfering with the impugned release order dated 29.8.05 which has been purportedly issued as a natural consequence of the withdrawal of service of the writ petitioner from MKVIB and appointment of the private respondent to look after the work of the Chief Executive Officer of MKVIB. Accordingly, the prayer of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 995 of 2005 is also rejected. 14. The writ petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in these three writ petitions being WP(C) Nos-923 of 2005, 938 of 2005 and 995 of 2005. With this finding, these three writ petitions stand disposed of.