2005 Supreme(Kar) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. KUMAR, J.
N. BHOOMANAND MANAY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21732 of 2005 (S-RES).
Decided on : 9th December, 2005

Headnote:Labour and Services -Statutory posts -Statutory posts -Persons occupying statutory posts do not hold office at the pleasure of Govenment-Hence, they cannot be removed like political appointees, due process of law should be complied with. [N.Kumar, J.] - As is clear from the decision of the Government and the instructions issued, it gives an impression that all political appointments made by the Government appointing Chairman and Directors to various Boards and Organizations was sought to be cancelled. If those appointments are purely political in nature the only criteria being loyalty to the party in power, they may be justified in removing such persons from office. That rule cannot be applied to statutory appointments made based on qualification in public interest. Obviously, the Government of the day and the Chief Minister have not applied their mind in the case of the petitioner. As a general rule they have removed all Chairman who were appointed during the previous regime. Therefore, the action of the Government cannot be upheld.

       Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 -Removal of member of Pollution Control Board -Section 5 -Removal of member of Pollution Control Board -Procedure for. [N. Kumar, J]: Under the scheme of the Act the State Government may if it thinks fit may remove any member of the Board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same. Therefore, removal of a member is also statutorily provided under the Act. It is in this back ground we have to see whether the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Chairmanship of the Board is in accordance with law.

       Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 -Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board -Section 5-Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board -Is not an office at the pleasure of the Government-No notice was issued to Chairman\petioner upon instruction issued by Chief Minister to Chief Secretary and other Secretaries, the petitioner was forced to handover the charge to another person-This does not amount to resignation -Hence there is no casual vacancy -As the term of office statutorily fixed, petitioner continues to hold office until his successor enters upon his office-Rule applicable to political appointment and the petitioner cannot be removed from chairmanship of the Board by issuing instruction. [N. Kumar, J]: Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Act, it is nobody s case that it is a removal under Section 5(3) of the Act. On the contrary the contention is that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned and handed over charge. Under Section 5(4) of the Act, the resignation has to be in writing and in his hand addressed to the State Government. The documents produced along with the Writ Petition referred to supra clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has not submitted his resignation for the Chairmanship of the Board at all. On the contrary on the basis of the instructions issued by the Chief Minister to the Chief Secretary and other Secretaries, the petitioner was forced to hand over the charge. The documents evidencing handling over of the charge specifically refers to the letter dated 22.7.2005 where under the Chief Minister has directed the Chief Secretary and other Secretaries to obtain resignations immediately from those Directors and Chairman of the Boards and Corporations who have not yet tendered the resignation and in the event of they refusing, to relieve them from their respective posts and take over the charge. This document dated 22.7.2005 is not disputed. It is not a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has not tendered his resignation as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 5. The seat of the Chairman has not become vacant. The proviso to subsection (I) of Section 5 categorically states that, a member shall notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office. The period of the Chairman or the member is not co-terminus with the period for which they are appointed. Their term would come to an end only when their successor enters upon his office. That is not the case here. Assuming for the argument sake that the petitioner was appointed in the casual vacancy which arose on account of the resignation of the previous Chairman, the term would come to an end only on 27.12.2005. Notwithstanding the expiration of his term, he continues to hold office until his successor enters upon his office. Seen from any angle, the removal of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board is contrary to law, illegal and cannot be sustained.