IMPORTANT POINT
Making stringent observation/strictures must be avoided by Courts as far as possible and only in exceptional circumstances such observations can be made.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.

The appellant, U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Electricity Board") seems to be more aggrieved by the following pungent/harsh observations made by the High Court against the officials of the Electricity Board and in particular against its Chairman and Secretary :

"Probably the authorities to U.P. State Electricity Board, think themselves above the State or the least a State within the State. It seems that they are under an illusion that if they flout the directions of the State Government, there would be no forum where the person can seek redress. They failed to realise that the State Government acting within its powers, sanctioned by law, had the authority to issue directions, particularly in matters, where a policy is involved leaving no option to them except to comply with those directions. As they refused to comply with the directions of the State Government in a most reckless and indiscreet manner, this Court, has no option except to force them to act, within the boundaries of law. But before doing so, I am constrained to say, that the Chairman and Secretary of U.P. State Electricity Board, considering themselves, a rare species like white Elephants, tried to ransack and destroy, circumvent the directions of the State Government. I am definitely of the view that the aforesaid officers are not only guilty of flouting the directions of the State Government, but are responsible for harassing, a retrenched employee who deserved sympathy and compassion. However, it is for the State Government to consider, as to whether such persons should be allowed to continue on such higher positions."

The circumstances under which the above observations came to be made can be briefly noted :

2. The Government of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision to absorb the employees of the Corporations/Undertakings which have been wound up due to recurring losses in other Departments/Undertakings of the Government. One such State owned Corporation which ended in winding up was the U.P. Chalchitra Nigam. After giving notice steps were taken to terminate the services of the employees of that Corporation and on humanitarian ground, the Government decided to take steps for absorption of the employees of this Corporation in other Departments/Organisations under the Government. Out of 600 employees of Chalchitra Nigam, only few had been left without absorption in other departments, one among those left out was the first respondent herein. Pursuant to the policy as stated above, the Government asked the Electricity Board to appoint the first respondent as Electrician. In apite of several such requests from the Government, the appellant Electricity Board took a stand that the Electricity Board being an autonomous body cannot be directed by the Government to absorb/appoint the first respondent in the Electricity Board as Electrician. Finding that the Electricity Board was not prepared to appoint/absorb him, the first respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Electricity Board to appoint/absorb him on the post of Electrician and for consequential reliefs. Even before the High Court, the appellalnt took the same stand by placing reliance on Sections 5 and 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

3. The learned Single Judge after looking into the various correspondence that passed between the Government and the Electricity Board made the above observations.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Electricity Board fairly and rightly stated that in compliance of the order of the High Court, the first respondent has been appointed/absorbed and the appellant has decided to continue his services irrespective of the result of this case. Therefore, so far as the questioin of law is concerned, we need not go into that in view of the fair and reasonable attitude taken by the appellant Electricity Board. However the learned couns