JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- "1(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order contained in Letter No. BMSIC/20050/01-2013/2531 dated 20.11.2014 passed by Respondent No.4 by which the petitioner's services with the respondent BMSICL was terminated. (ii) To issue a further writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to reinstate the petitioner with back wages on the post he was working prior to the impugned order of termination along with the cost of litigation incurred by the petitioner." 3. Before Mr. Binod Kanth, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, could make his submission, a preliminary objection, as also recorded in the earlier order of this Court dated 6.4.2015, was sought to be pressed again by Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel for the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation'). Such preliminary objection in fact is that since the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of misconduct by an order dated 20.11.2014 in terms of Clause-10 (c)(ii) and (iii) of the Professional Service Agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation, there would be an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation. 4. Mr. Kanth however immediately has clarified the mist by pointing out that the agreement in which there was a provision for an appeal before the Chairman in fact had already come to an end and in fact both the petitioner and the Corporation were governed by a fresh agreement in which there is no such provision of appeal. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, Mr. Kanth seems to be absolutely correct. The first agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation was executed on 1st of July, 2011 and that was for a period of three years commencing from 1.7.2011 and up to 30.6.2014. It was the condition of that agreement under Clause 10 (f) & (g) that the services of the petitioner could be terminated after giving notice to him and the petitioner in fact being aggrieved may file an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation against the judgment of the Managing Director. It was the condition of that agreement under Clause 10 (f) & (g) that the services of the petitioner could be terminated after giving notice to him and the petitioner in fact being aggrieved may file an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation against the judgment of the Managing Director. The life of this agreement, however, came to an end on 30.6.2014 and, thereafter, the parties i.e. the petitioner and the Corporation had entered into a fresh agreement commencing from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015. In this agreement, there was no provision of appeal and in fact there was a provision made for settlement of dispute. Reading of Clause-13 of the agreement also would, therefore, make it clear that it was the Managing Director who was to take a decision of such dispute failing which the petitioner had to move competent court for resolution of the dispute. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed by the Managing Director itself and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner moving before any authority except court. 6. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this Court would not find the present writ application, filed by the petitioner against a Corporation owned and controlled by the State Government, to be in any manner not maintainable on account of not exhausting the alternative remedy. The preliminary objection, therefore, raised by Mr. Tuhin is hereby rejected. 7. Mr. Kanth then proceed to assail the impugned order on the ground that it was not only based on the pre-dictated terms by the State Government but in fact such a decision had already been taken before issuing of a show-cause notice to the petitioner for his termination of service and only a formality has been sought to be completed by way of post decisional hearing. Mr. Kanth in this regard explains that there is a direct proof of impugned order passed by Managing Director of Corporation to be based on the dictation of the State Government, inasmuch as, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, under the decision of the Government in the Health Department, had written a letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation on 13.10.2014 in which it was mentioned that upon enquiry being conducted by Mr. Anand Kisore, Secretary to the government in Health Department in the matter of purchase of medicine by the Corporation, it was found that there were not only procedural lapse committed but also serious financial irregularities in awarding of the contract. 8. According to Mr. it was actually a Committee of five officials headed by Mr. Anand Kisore the departmental Secretary which had also found Technical Evaluation Committee of the Corporation to be guilty in committing procedural lapse and serious financial irregularities. Mr. Kantha has also pointed out that the aforesaid letter dated 13.10.2014 of the State Government had contained a conclusive finding in respect of the petitioner that since he was also a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee, a decision has been taken by the State Government to remove him from service after asking a show-cause from him. Mr. Kanth, therefore, submits that when this letter dated 13.10.2014 of State Government was itself subject matter of show-cause notice dated 18.10.2014 issued by the Managing Director of Corporation nothing would remain for speculation that here was a case of post decisional hearing by way of giving opportunity of show-cause to the petitioner on the dictation given by the State Government to remove the petitioner from service of Corporation. 9. Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel for corporation however, would like to clarify that since the Government in its aforesaid letter had found allegation against the petitioner to be prima facie proved, the ultimate show-cause notice issued by the Managing Director or the decision taken by him has not been influenced by the aforesaid government decision. 10. This Court would find it very difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Tuhin Shankar for more than one reason. Firstly, till the advent of the letter dated 13.10.2014, there was no scope for even doubting the conduct of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, when certain observations were made by this Court in a public interest litigation case, being CWJC No. 2305 of 2014, as with regard to some irregularity in the purchase of medicine by the Corporation, the Government had constituted a Committee of five officials headed by Mr. Anand Kisore, the Secretary to the Health Department. It is this Committee which had allegedly enquired into the matter and thereafter also come to its findings. Anand Kisore, the Secretary to the Health Department. It is this Committee which had allegedly enquired into the matter and thereafter also come to its findings. The relevant portion of the order of the State Government dated 13.10.2014 reads as follows:- la0la0&12@i0&09&08@2014&651¼12½ fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; foHkkx izs"kd] vfuy dqekj ljdkj ds mi lfpoA lsok esa] izca/k funs'kd] ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 iVukA iVuk] fnukad 13-10-2014 fo"k;& Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj egkizca/kd ¼,Q0,.M,0½] ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0] iVuk ls dkj.k i`PNk djrs gq, mUgaas ineqDr djus ds laca/k esA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj] iVuk ds fu;a=.kk/khu ch,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 iVuk }kjk nokvksa ds dz; gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk fu"iknu esa vfu;ferrk,a cjrus ds laca/k eas eks0 'kkguokt vyh] vf/koDrk] mPPk U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa lh0MCY;w0ts0lh0 la[;k&2305@2014 nk;j fd;k x;k] ftlesa fnukad 24-07-2014 dks ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa iz/kku lfpo }kjk leh{kksijkUr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk FkkA bl laca/k esa tkap gsrq Jh vkuUn fd'kksj Hkk0iz0ls0 lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx≶&dkZikyd funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa xfBr tkap lfefr dks fuEu :i ls foLrkfjr djrs gq, ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, tkap djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk& ¼d½ Jh vkuUn fd'kksj] Hkk0iz0ls0] lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ¼[k½ Jh eukst dqekj] Hkk0iz0ls0 la;qDr lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj iVukA ¼x½ Jh lqjs'k dqekj 'kekZ] la;qDr lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ¼?k½ Jh jtuh'k dqekj flag] iz'kklh inkf/kdkjh] jkT; LokLF; lfefr] iVuk ¼M+½ Jh jke ckcw lkg] la;qDr funs'kd ¼foŸk½] fcgkj jkT; ,M~l fu;a=.k lfefr] iVuk 2- Jh vkuUn fd'kksj lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx≶&dkZikyd funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa xfBr tkap lfefr dk izfrosnu la;qDr lfpo ds Kkikad&711¼17½ fnukad 10-10-2014 }kjk izkIr gqvkA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa iz/kku lfpo ds }kjk Hkh tkapksijkUr muds Kkikad&233¼,p0,l0½ fnukad 10-10-2014 }kjk vuq'kalk,a foHkkx dks dh xbZA tkap lfefr }kjk lefiZr tkap izfrosnu ,oa iz/kku lfpo dh vuq'kalkvksa ds leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 }kjk nokvksa ds dz; djus gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk ds fu"iknu esa fuEukafdr xaHkhj vfu;ferrk,a cjrh xbZ gS& ¼d½ lfefr ds }kjk NIT dh 'krksZa ls fHkUu ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA ¼[k½ lfefr ds }kjk tks ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k mls Hkh uniformly lHkh daifu;ksa ij ugha yxk;k x;kA ¼x½ xyr ekin.M ,oa xyr dkj.kksa ds dbZ daifu;ksa dks fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr fd;k x;kA ¼?k½ fof'k"V :i ls ,d daiuh Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. dh rduhdh fufonk vikjn'khZ <ax ls Lohd`r dh x;hA ¼M+½ lcls egRoiw.kZ ckr gS fd vikjn'khZ <ax ls p;fur mDr daiuh dks 47 Product es LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k rFkk 17 vkS"kf/k;ksa esa rks mUgsa ,dy fufonk ds vk/kkj ij LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA 4- bldk ifj.kke ;g gqvk gS fd iwjh fufonk izfØz;k esa izfrLi)kZ de gqbZ] dbZ njksa dk fu/kkZj.k ,dy vk/kkj ij gqvkA xyr <ax ls dbZ daifu;ksa dks v;ksX;@;ksX; ugha fd;k tkrk rks laHkor% vkSj vf/kd izfrLi)kZRed ,oa leqfpr njksa dk fu/kkZj.k gksrkA Li"Vr;k ;g Procedural lapse ugha gS cfYd Serious financial irregularities dks fn[kkrk gSaA 5- mi;qZDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds fy, i`Fkd n`"V;k rduhdh ewY;kadu lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks nks"kh ik;k x;kA 6- Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj] egkizca/kd] ¼,Q0 ,.M ,0½] ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0] iVuk rduhdh ewY;kadu lfefr ds lnL; FksA ljdkj }kjk Jh dqekj ls dkj.k&i`PNk djrs gq, bUgsa ineqDr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 7- Jh vkuUn fd'kksj] lfpo≶&dkZikyd funsa'kd] LokLF; foHkkx dh v/;{krk esa xfBr tkap lfefr ds izfrosnu dh izfr layXu djrs gq, vuqjks/k gS fd Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj] egkizca/kd] ¼,Q0 ,.M ,0½] ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0] iVuk ds fo:) rnuqdwy dkjZokbZ djrs gq, foHkkx dks voxr djkus dh d`ik dh tk,A vuq0&;FkksDr fo'oklHkktu g0 13-10-14 ¼vfuy dqekj½ ljdkj ds mi lfpo** (underling for emphasis) 11. The underlined portion of the order, therefore, will clearly go to show that the government had already taken a conscious decision after holding its enquiry through Five Men Committee to remove the petitioner. Thus, whatever was added as addenda in paragraph no.6 of the order that show-cause notice should be asked from the petitioner was only by way of completing the formality. 12. Let it be noted that the Corporation in reality is an adjunct of the State Government and is fully owned and controlled by the State Government. The Managing Director of the Corporation being its own appointee cannot even question the government decision much less act against it. Therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that when he had issued the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2014 or had passed the impugned order on 20.11.2014, he was acting under dictation of the State Government. The Managing Director of the Corporation being its own appointee cannot even question the government decision much less act against it. Therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that when he had issued the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2014 or had passed the impugned order on 20.11.2014, he was acting under dictation of the State Government. This also becomes evident from the contents of the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2014 wherein it read as follows:- i=kad la[;k& ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0@2005@20050@1&2013@228 fnukad 18@10@2014 lsok esa] Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj egkizca/kd ¼,Q0,.M ,0½ ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 foLdkseku Hkou] xka/kh eSnku iVukA fo"k;& nokvksa ds dz; gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk fu”iknu esa vfu;ferrk,a cjrus ds lac/k eas dkj.k i`PNk uksfVl izlax& fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; foHkkx ds i=kad la[;k 651¼12½ fnukad 13-10-2014 ,oa tkap lfefr dh fjiksVZ i=kad 711¼17½ fnukad 10-10-2014 ds }kjk izsf"kr egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ,oa izklkafxd i= ds laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 }kjk nokvksa ds dz; gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk fu"iknu esa vfu;ferrk,a cjrus ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk esa nk;j lh0MCY;w0ts0;h0 la[;k 2305@2014 esa fnukad 24-07-2014 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa iz/kku lfpo }kjk leh{kksijkUr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk FkkA bl laca/k esa tkap gsrq Jh vkuUn fd'kksj] Hkk0iz0ls0] lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx≶&dkZikyd funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa ikap lnL;h; tkap desVh dk xBu fd;k x;kA 2- mijksDr tkap lfefr }kjk tkapksijkUr viuk izfrosnu la;qDr lfpo ds Kkikad 711¼17½ fnukad 10-10-2014 }kjk lkSai nh xbZ gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa iz/kku lfpo ds }kjk Hkh tkapksijkUr mudh vuq'kalk,a Kkikad 233 ¼,p0,l0½ fnukad 10-10-2014 }kjk foHkkx dks lkSai nh xbZ gSA 3- tkap lfefr }kjk tkap izfrosnu esa izkIr vuq'kalkvksa ds leh{kksijkUr LokLF; foHkkx us ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 }kjk nokvksa ds dz; djus gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk ds fu"iknu esa fuEukafdr xaHkhj vfu;ferrkvksa dk mYys[k ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 dks izsf"kr vius i=kad 651¼12½ fnukad 13-10-2014 esa fd;k gSA ¼d½ lfefr ds }kjk NIT dh 'krksaZ ls fHkUu ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA ¼[k½ lfefr ds }kjk tks ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k mls Hkh uniformly lHkh daifu;ksa ij ugha yxk;k x;kA ¼x½ xyr ekin.M ,oa xyr dkj.kksa ls dbZ daifu;ksa dks fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr fd;k x;kA ¼?k½ fof'k"V :i ls ,d daiuh Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. dh rduhdh fufonk vikjn'khZ <ax ls Lohd`r dh x;hA ¼M+½ lcls egRoiw.kZ ckr gS fd vikjn'khZ <ax ls p;fur mDr daiuh dks 47 Product es LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k rFkk 17 vkS"kf/k;ksa eas rks mUgsa ,dy fufonk ds vk/kkj ij LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA 4- bldk ifj.kke ;g gqvk gS fd iwjh fufonk izfØ;k esa izfrLi)kZ de gqbZ] dbZ njksa dk fu/kkZj.k ,dy vk/kkj ij gqvkA xyr <ax ls dbZ daifu;kaa dks v;ksX;@;ksX; ugha fd;k tkrk rks laHkor% vkSj vf/kd izfrLi)kZRed ,oa leqfpr njksa dk fu/kkZj.k gksrk Li"Vr;k ;g Procedural lapse ugha gS cfYd serious financial irregularities dks fn[kkrk gSA 5- mi;qZDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds fy, izFkr n`"V;k rduhdh ewY;kadu lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks nks"kh ik;k x;kA 6- pwafd vki rduhdh ewY;kadu lfefr ds lnL; Fks blfy, mijksDr ds vkyksd esa tkap desVh }kjk vki ls dkj.k i`PNk djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gSA 7- mi;ZqDr fooj.k rFkk foHkkx esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd vkius Professional Services Agreement ds 'krksaZ dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA d`i;k i= fuxZr dh frfFk ls 7 fnuks esa Li"V djsa fd D;ksa ughaA Agreement lekIr djrs gq;s vkidh lsok,a lekIr dh tk;saA ;fn vkidk tcko fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa izkIr ugha gksrk gS] rks vkids f[kykQ ,drjQk dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA g0@& vLi"V 18-10-14 izca?k funs'kd ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0** (underlining for emphasis) 13. The aforesaid underlined portion of the show cause notices with regard to reference of the same letter of the State Government dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-10) will leave nothing for speculation that it was the order of the State Government which had weighed upon the Managing Director to even issue show-cause notice to the petitioner. The decision of the State Government however as noted above in the letter dated 13.10.2014 for removing the petitioner from service had already been communicated to the Managing Director of the Corporation and, therefore, the order that has been ultimately passed by the Managing Director by way of holding the petitioner guilty and terminating the contract of the petitioner on 20.11.2014 as contained in Annexure-18 was definitely influenced by the aforesaid government decision already taken on 13.10.2014. 14. As a matter of fact, the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 being the fallout of the decision of the State Government dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-10) is further conclusively proved not only from the contents of the order dated 20.11.2014 but also by the conduct of the Managing Director who on demand of the petitioner to supply the letter of the Principal Secretary of the Health Department dated 10.10.2014 as referred to the show-cause notice had informed the petitioner vide his letter dated 27.10.2014 that such letter of the Principal Secretary of the Health Department dated 10.10.2014 was not in the office of the Corporation and the petitioner should demand such copy directly from the Health Department. Thus, the over-dominating presence of the instruction of the Health Department either in the letter dated 10.10.2014 or 13.10.2014 had weighed upon the authorities of the Corporation and particularly on its Managing Director in passing the impugned order as would also be evidenced from the operative portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- ^^mijksDr ds vkyksd esa vkSj Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj ls izkIr dkj.k i`PNk ds tcko ,oa vU; vfHkys[k dh lE;d foospuk ds mijkUr ;s Li"V gS fd vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk nkf[ky tcko vlarks"k izn gSA vr% dkj.k i`PNk esa Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj ij rduhdh ewY;kadu lfefr ds lnL; ds :i esa nok dz; fufonk fu"iknu esaa gq, fuEuor vfu;ferrkvksa dk yxk;k x;k vkjksi& ¼d½ lfefr ds }kjk NIT dh 'krksZa ls fHkUu ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k] ¼[k½ lfefr ds }kjk tks ekin.M dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k mls Hkh uniformly lHkh daifu;ksa ij ugha yxk;k x;k] ¼x½ xyr ekin.M ,oa xyr dkj.kksa ls dbZ daifu;ksa dks fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr fd;k x;k] ¼?k½ fof'k"V :i ls ,d daiuh Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. dh rduhdh fufonk vikjn'khZ <ax ls Lohd`r dh x;h ¼M+½ lcls egRoiw.kZ ckr gS fd vikjn'khZ <ax ls p;fur mDr daiuh dks 47 Product esa LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k rFkk 17 vkS"kf/k;ksa eaas rks mUgsa ,dy fufonk ds vk/kkj ij LI ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k] ftlls iwjh fufonk izfØ;k esa izfrLi)kZ de gqbZ dbZ njksa dk fu/kkZj.k ,dy vk/kkj ij gqvkA xyr <x ls dbZ daifu;ksa dks v;ksX;@;ksX; ugha fd;k tkrk rks laHkor% vkSj vf/kd izfrLi)kZRed ,oa leqfpr njksa dk fu/kkZj.k gksrkA Li"Vr;k ;g Procedural lapse ugha gS cfYd Serious financial irregularities dks fn[kkrk gS] izekf.kr gksrk gSA mijksDr ds vkyksd ,oa Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj }kjk ch0,e0,l0vkbZ0lh0,y0 ds lkFk fd, x;s Professional Service Agreement ds 'krZ la[;k 10cii ,oa iii ds vkyksd esa Jh f=iqjkjh dqekj dh rRdky izHkko ls ch-,e-,l-vkbZ-lh-,y- ls egkizca/kd ¼foŸk ,oa iz'kk0½ ds :i esa iznŸk lkjh lqfo/kkvksa dks vfoyEc okil djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA g0@& 20-11-14 izca/k funs'kd ch-,e-,l-vkbZ-lh-,y-** 15. A bare reading of the aforesaid operative portion of the order will itself go to show that the allegations which were found out to be correct by the Five Men Enquiry Committee of the State Government was not only reproduced but was also found to have been proved simply because in the order dated 13.10.2014, the Government had held to the same effect. There cannot be, therefore, a better proof of the Managing Director of the Corporation acting under the dictation of the State Government. 16. It has to be kept in mind that under the subsisting agreement of service of the petitioner for the period 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015, the power of termination of contract without completing the minimum period of service of thirty days could be exercised on the judgment of the Managing Director on being satisfied that the activities and the behavior of the petitioner was inappropriate, against the interest of the Corporation and endangered the success of the Corporation or contravened local laws and customs or government policy and direction. Such termination of agreement without completing minimum period of thirty days notice could also be effected on the judgment of the Managing Director if it was found by him that the petitioner was using/trying to use the resources of the Corporation of his present position for personal gains or favour. It was only under these two situations covered by Clause No. 10 (c) (ii) & (iii) of the agreement that the power of termination could be exercised by the Managing Director but then, as noted above, there was no such satisfaction based on his own judgment rather the same was the direct outcome of the direction and dictation given by the State Government in its letter dated 13.10.2014. 17. Dealing with this very aspect, Professor Sir William Wade and Professor Christopher Forsyth in their treatise "Administrative Law" published by Oxford 7th Edition in Chapter-11, "Retention of Discretion" while explaining the concept of exercise of discretionary power and its surrender, abdication and dictation, have opined as follows:- "Closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is in substance exercised by another. The proper authority may share its power with some one else, or may allow some one else to dictate to it by declining to act without their consent or by submitting to their wishes or instructions. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by the wrong authority, and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void. So strict are the courts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them.-------" 18. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by the wrong authority, and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void. So strict are the courts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them.-------" 18. The aforesaid principle under English Law has also been followed in India by the Apex Court and the High Courts in several cases. Firstly, the said doctrine was invoked in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 wherein it was held that the cancellation of licence granted for construction of a cinema hall by the Commissioner of Police at the direction of the State Government was bad as he had acted merely as an agent of the Government. 19. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Rambharosa Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1953 Pat 370 had similarly held the directions given by the Government to the District Magistrate to give public ferries on lease to be bad and had set aside the order of the District Magistrate who had merely acted as per the direction of the State Government, even when the relevant rules empowered only the District Magistrate to give public ferries on lease subject to any direction of the Commissioner. 20. The Apex Court again in the case of Orient Paper Mills Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 48 had applied this principle while setting aside the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Excise who instead of deciding it independently had ordered levy of excise in accordance with the direction issued by the Collector. 21. The celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896 is still a locus classicus where the action of Cane Commissioner cancelling the grant of Sugar Cane field under the order of Chief Minister of Bihar had been held to be bad on the ground that when the power to allow the grant was vested in the Cane Commissioner, the order passed by him on the dictation of the Chief Minister could not be sustained. 22. 22. Thus, both on account of analysis on facts and in law as discussed above, this Court would find the impugned order terminating the contract of service of the petitioner to be bad as the Managing Director had passed the impugned order on the dictation of the State Government. In fact, if the tenor of the show-cause notice issued by the Managing Director of the Company to the petitioner is closely examined in the backdrop of the earlier order of the State Government with regard to the decision taken for terminating the contract of service of the petitioner, nothing is left for speculation that the show-cause was a mere formality and in fact more or less was by way of post decisional hearing. Such post decisional hearing baring some very urgent and exceptional cases has never been approved by the Apex Court, inasmuch as, there is a definite bias to uphold the decision taken making the whole concept of hearing a farce. 23. That being so, there can be no escape from the irresistible conclusion that the impugned order has been passed by the Managing Director of the Company on the dictation of the State Government which, as noted above, had no place much less any role in terminating the service contract of the petitioner. 24. This Court, therefore, will have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 as contained in Annexure-18 to this writ application. 25. At this stage, Mr. Kanth has informed this Court that the petitioner, a qualified Chartered Accountant, is no longer interested in continuing in service of the Corporation and would be happy if he is allowed to go without any stigma against his name. 26. Having regard to the fact that the term of the contract of the petitioner is going to be expire on 30.6.2015 and he is long longer desirous of being reinstated in service and that the misconduct alleged against him also cannot be fastened single handedly on him but on the entire purchase committee, this Court would not like now to allow the Corporation to reopen the whole thing specially when there is no chance that the Corporation can get away from the direction already issued by the State Government to terminate the services of the petitioner. 27. 27. Thus if the matter is closed it would be a win-win situation for both the sides, inasmuch as, the Corporation would no longer be required to continue with the services of the petitioner and the petitioner also gets reprieve and goes back to his home without any stigma. As the petitioner himself does not want reinstatement and continuance of his service in the Corporation, he will also not be entitled to claim any back wages for the period he had to remain out of service on account of the impugned order, which, as noted above, stands quashed in view of this judgment. 28. That being so, this writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. 29. There would be, however, no order as to costs.