- (1.) The petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the 2 nd respondent, namely, the Board of Directors. By the impugned order, the Board of Directors set aside suo motu an order of the Chairman directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The petitioner had been working as a Conductor and he had been terminated from service as a measure of punishment by the Managing Director by his order dated 01.02.2008. His appeal to the Chairman was dismissed summarily on 08.09.2008 on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond time. The petitioner made a representation pointing out to the fact that the order of termination was received by him only on 25.02.2008 and the appeal was within 30 days from the date of receipt and, therefore, in time. The Chairman recalled his earlier order of summary rejection of the appeal and found that there was even a provision for entertaining time barred appeals and, therefore, found that the misconduct attributed to him was not so severe as to justify an extreme punishment of termination of service. He, therefore, set aside the order of termination and instead imposed a punishment of withholding increments till his retirement with cumulative effect and making a further direction for deposit of Rs.71,084/-.
(2.) This order of reinstatement was set aside suo motu by the Board of Directors on 03.09.2010 which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. The petitioner has made a representation against this order of the Board to the Government and the Government has also passed an order on 04.10.2010 giving a direction to the Board to enforce the order of the Chairman and reinstate him in service to prevent any legal complications. The Government's order to the Managing Director was not given effect in spite of a representation and, therefore, the petitioner has applied to this Court for a mandamus to quash the order dated 03.09.2010. From the sequence of events, it can be seen that even a prayer for quashing of the order was unnecessary since the Government decided to do so when it urged the Managing Director to reinstate him in service to avoid legal complications. The Government had also observed that the decision taken by the Board of Directors itself was beyond jurisdiction and without authority. The Board was actually doing something extraordinary in setting aside an order of reinstatement even when it had no such power to do so. A supervisory power to set right administrative matters cannot extend to annulling the quasi judicial decision taken by a Chairman by virtue of the powers vested under the Regulations. The order of the Board of Directors was perverse from the beginning and the dogged refusal to even accede to the Government recommendation to the Managing Director beats comprehension and betrays a complete lack of fairness on the part of the administration.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents stoutly defends the decision taken by the Board by saying that the Chairman did not have a power to set aside his own summary rejection of the appeal by a fresh consideration. His contention is also not correct, considering the fact that in limine dismissal was patently wrong. If there was a provision for an appeal within 30 days, 30 days must always be counted only from the date of communication of the order. The period from the date of order must always be understood as the period from the date of communication of the order as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Saibaba Versus Council of India, 2003 6 SCC 186.;