Hon'ble KOKJE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a Member of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short 'the Commission' ). He was nominated by the State Government as a Member of the Commission by order dated 23/2/1996, in exercise of powers under Sec. 16(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act' ). Separate appointment order of the same date was also issued by the State Government. In the notification, it was not specified as to whether he was being appointed on full time or part time basis but in the appointment order, his appointment was stated to be on part time basis. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment stated in the appointment letter, the appointment was for a period of five years or till completion of 67 years of age by the petitioner, whichever was earlier. It was specifically stated in the order that the petitioner could be removed from his post under the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Act. A condition was also imposed that the petitioner shall surrender his licence to practice as an Advocate during his tenure as a Member of the commission and he shall not be entitled to practice during the tenure of his appointment as a Member. It was also specifically stated that the terms and conditions of his service shall be regulated by the Rules.
(2.) THE petitioner discharged his duties as a Member of the Commission till he was removed vide notification dated 1. 5. 99 issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Rajasthan. No reasons were stated in the notification for the removal except the reason that it was not in public interest to allow the petitioner to continue as a Member of the Commission. Aggrieved by his removal vide notification dated 1. 5. 99, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that on appointment as a Member of the Commission, he got his licence to practice as an Advocate suspended and stopped functioning as Panel Lawyer of Government organisations. According to him, he had discharged his duties as a Member of the Commission in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and the Act in an upright manner. It was contended that he was removed from his post in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the petitioner had reason to believe that he had been removed in an arbitrary manner for the sole reason that he was appointed by the earlier government and functionaries of the State were interested in appointing some person of their personal choice as a Member of the Commission. The State Government in its reply took a stand that the petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties and did not cooperate with the Chairman of the Commission and also did not attend the meetings, resulting in wastage of time and money. Copies of letters dated 6. 6. 1998 and 29. 6. 1998 written by the Chairman of the Commission to the Secretary of the Food Department and to the Chief Minister were produced in support of this contention. It was also contended that under Rule 6(5)(e) of the Rules, the State Government had power to remove a Member from his office if he has abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest. It was contended that on the basis of the Chairman's letters, referred to above, the continuance of the petitioner as a Member of the Commission was prejudicial to the public interest. It was also contended that when the Chairman of the Commission was complaining against the petitioner, it was not desirable to issue show cause notice and to hold enquiry against the petitioner. It was further contended that the process of removing the petitioner from the membership of the Commission was initiated by the Chairman of the Commission during the tenure of the Government headed by the Bhartiya Janta Party and therefore, the question of any political motive in removing the petitioner for making room for a person of the choice of the new government was also not there, as alleged by the petitioner. It is also contended that it was not possible for the State Government to get a person of their choice appointed to the post of Member as under the Act, the selection is to be done by a Selection Committee comprising of the Chairman of the Commission, Law Secretary and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Food Department. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, I find that the impugned action of the State Government is patently illegal, arbitrary and totally unsupportable. Sec. 16(2) of the Act provides that the salary or honorarium and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the Members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 16 of the Act provides that every Member of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or upto the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the salary and other allowances and terms and conditions of appointment of the President and Members of the State Commission. Proviso to sub-rule (4) provides that a Member may by writing under his hand and addressed to the State Government resign his office any time. He may also be removed from his office in accordance with provisions of sub Rule (5). Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 reads and under:- (5) The State Government may remove from office, President or a Member of the State Commission who:- (a) has been adjudged an insolvent, or (b) has been convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude, or (c) has been physically or mentally incapable of acting as such member, or (d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a Member, or President or (e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest. Provided that the President or a Member shall not be removed from his office on the ground specified in clauses (d) and (e) except on an inquiry held by the State Government, in accordance with such procedure as it may specify in this behalf and finds the Member to guilty of such ground." It is clear that the State Government has removed the petitioner on ground (e) of Rule 6 (5) of the Rules. The proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 itself requires an enquiry to be held by the State Government in accordance with such procedure as it may specify in this behalf before a Member is removed under the rule. Admittedly, no such enquiry was held. The reason for not holding enquiry stated in the reply to the writ petition is that complaint was made by the Chairman of the Commission himself. The rule does not dispense with the requirement of conducting enquiry when the complaint is made by the Chairman of the Commission himself. Actually, the proviso is a safeguard against arbitrary removal of a Member and the Act does not make any difference between the Chairman and the Member, in respect of removal from office. The position of the Chairman is just like the position of the Chief Justice vis-a-vis a Puisne Judge of the High Court. He is only first amongst the equals.
(3.) MOREOVER, the complaint of the Chairman in the two letters dated 6/6/1998 and 29/6/1998 was mostly against the lady Member. In letter dated 6. 6. 98, what was stated against the petitioner was as under:- "you will appreciate that at least one member besides the President must be present to make the quorum but unfortunately many times the quoram is not complete for absence of both the members. So far as Mr. Subhash Purohit is concerned, he stays at Jodhpur and per chance if, he is unable to come, he at least informs the Registry about his not coming. Though there may not be formal sitting of the Commission, I am at least mentally prepared to complete other administrative work or look into the files or write pending judgments." In the letter dated 29. 6. 98, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner alone. Thus, it is clear that there was absolutely no material before the State Government to hold that the allegations made by the Chairman were correct and that it was necessary to remove the petitioner from the post of the Member of the Commissioner, in public interest. Close on the heels of the order removing the petitioner vide notification dated 1/5/1999, on 10/5/1999, a notification was issued inviting applications for the post of Member of the Commission which gives credence to the allegation made by the petitioner that he was removed for making room for fresh appointment of a person of the choice of the new Government. ;