M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 19 -2 -2003 issued under the signature of Chief General Manager (Personnel) Coal India Ltd. whereby the petitioner was intimated that the tenure of the petitioner as Director (Personel) Central Coalfield Ltd. has been terminated and he has been relieved from his duties as Director (Personnel) w.e.f. 10 -2 -2003.
(2.) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined M/s. Central Mines Planning & Design Institute (in short -C.M.P.D.I.) as Deputy Chief Engineer (E & M) in the year 1990 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer in the year 1991. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Chief General Manager CMPDL In the year 1996 the petitioner being one of the eligible candidates for appointment as Director was called for interview along with other eligible candidates. By office order dated 27.5.97 and 21.12.97 petitioner was appointed as Director (Personnel) on lien in M/s Eastern Coalfield Ltd. for a period of 5 years on the terms and conditions contained in the said order. It is contended by the petitioner that during the period the petitioner worked as a Director there was no complaint and therefore, he was again called for interview for extension of the period and since the tenure of the petitioner was to expire on 1st June 2002, the respondent Coal India Ltd. by office order dated 25 -5 -02 intimidated that the Joint Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Coal, New Delhi passed an order of status quo for a further period of six months. However, by another office order dated 26 -7 -02 it was intimated that the period of extension was only for three months and not six months. By another office order dated 16 -9 -02 the extension period of three months was again reduced to a period of one month beyond August 2002. The petitioner said to have shocked and surprised to receive the office order dated 18 -11 -02 whereby he was informed that since the tenure of the appointment of the petitioner as Director (Personel) was under consideration he will only look after the work relating to welfare and community development pending further communication. Finally pursuant to the impugned letter dated 19 -2 -03 the petitioner was informed that the Director, Govt. of India Ministry of Coal, New Delhi relieved the petitioner from the post of Director with immediate effect. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner stated that he completed 5 years in the post of Director (Personnel) on 1st June 2002 and as such beyond the said date followed by extension upto 19 -1 -03 he has lost his lien to his original post of Chief General Manager and as such now the petitioner cannot be reverted back to the said post and he was entitled to continue as Director. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 namely the Ministry of Coal Mines. Department of Coal, Govt of India, wherein it is stated that admittedly the petitioner was appointed on a tenure post as Director on contract basis for a period of five years which expired on 1 -6 -02 and thereafter he was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis only upto 30 -9 -02 and ultimately he was relieved from the said post. It is stated that in view of the instructions of Department of Personnel and Training contained in OM No. 27 (II) -EO/86 (ACC), dated 19/21st May 1986, appointment to board level post in Central Public Enterprises are made for a period of five years or till the date of superannuation which ever is earlier on contract basis containing a provision that either party will have the option to terminate the services prematurely after giving three months notice. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis is to be governed by the Articles of Association of the Central Coalfield Ltd, particularly Article 34(1)(A) and 34(E). The respondents further case is that the question of extension/nonextension of tenure of the petitioner beyond 1 -6 -02 was considered by the Central Govt. in terms of prescribed instructions in consultation with the Public Enterprises Selection Board . The PSEB conducted joint appraisal on the performance of the petitioner on 29 -10 -01 and had recommended for extension of tenure of the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile, the Ministry received several complaints against the petitioner. Thereafter the complaints were examined in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer of the respective Coal Companies and sent to CVC for their advice in the matter. Since there were several complaints and taking a decision was likely to take considerable time, therefore, the petitioner was allowed to continue on adhoc basis with the approval of the competent authority. Against two complaints CVC recommended for initiation of departmental proceedings other than censure. However, when the adverse comments on the conduct of the petitioner came to the notice of Govt. of India, it transpired that the conduct of the petitioner was under cloud and suspicion, the therefore it was not expedient to recommend extension of his tenure as Director (Personnel) CCL. Accordingly a proposal was sent to the Department of Personnel and Training for non -extension of tenure of the petitioner for consideration of ACC and also ex -post facto regularization of tenure of the petitioner as Director (Personnel) CCL w.e.f. 1 -10 -02 till non extention of his tenure.
(3.) MR . M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary, malafide and based on based on extraneous consideration. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the petitioner completed 5 years in the post of Director (Personnel) on 1st June, 2002 followed by extension upto 19 -1 -03. The petitioner has lost his lien to his original post of Chief General Manager and as such now the petitioner cannot be reverted back to the said post and he is entitled to the extension of his tenure. Learned counsel submitted that when the process of extention in the post of Director (Personnel) initiated, the petitioner being considered suitable for extension, required information of the petitioner's performance was called from the CMD, CCL and detailed information in the prescribed proforma for extension of the petitioner positive report was made in every respect along with the recommendation by CMD, CCL for his extension. It was reported that the petitioners performance has been outstanding and he is officer of high integrity. It is the petitioner who introduced a special female Voluntary Retirement Scheme and he reduced the loss of production and improved industrial relation and discipline. Learned counsel submitted that on 22 -10 -01 interview letter was issued to the petitioner for the extension of the period which unequivocally goes to suggest that till that date the petitioner was found eligible and competent in all respect and his performance report was further examined by the Ministry and PESB and recommendation was sent for extension for further period of 5 years. According to the learned counsel inspite of such facts not extending the petitioner's services in the post of Director (Personnel) amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the respondents and the action of the respondents failed the test of reasonableness and equality and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel contended that impugned order is punitive, stigmatic and visits the petitioner with evil and civil consequences. Such action is bad in law for want of compliance of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel drawn my attention to Annexure 14 which is directives contained in the letter dated 21.11.96 issued by Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) regarding the process of extension and non -extension tenure of full time Board level employees in the public sector undertakings and submitted that according to this guidelines joint appraisal is to be made by the PESB as well as the concerned administrative Ministry/Ministry of Coal and not by PESB alone. According to the learned counsel the respondents have deliberately suppressed the said letter and did not follow the guidelines. Mr. Verma learned senior counsel then submitted that it is only in the case of appointment vigilance clearance is required and not for the extension of the period of Board level services. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that CVC is merely an advisory body whose recommendation are not the last word and it is the disciplinary authority, in case any departmental proceeding is Initiated, which has not been done in the case of the petitioner.;