Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3476
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Yogendra Prashad S/o late Mr.Indrsan Parsad -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondent
Writ Petition No.102 of 2010 (S/B)
Decided On : 30-09-2010
The doctrine of pleasure in employment termination does not allow arbitrary actions and requires valid reasons to support the withdrawal of pleasure. The burden of proof for establishing malafides is heavy, and proper pleadings and adequate proof are necessary.
Headnote:
Pleasure Doctrine - Employment Termination - [Article 34(d) of the Articles of Association, Constitution of India, Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398, State of Bihar Vs. Abdul Majid 1954 SCR 786, B.P. Singhal Vs. Union of India & another J.T. 2010 (5) J.T. SC 640, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & others 1999 (3) SCC 60, E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & another AIR 1974 SC 555] - The court discussed the doctrine of pleasure and its application in the context of employment termination. It emphasized that the doctrine of pleasure does not give unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. The court held that the withdrawal of pleasure must be for valid reasons and not at the sweet will, whim, and fancy of the authority. It also highlighted the heavy burden of proof on the party alleging malafides and the need for proper pleadings and adequate proof to establish malafides.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Chairman-cum-Managing Director, was appointed as a Special Advisor and later as Chairman of a corporation. He made complaints against a director, which led to a chain of events resulting in his termination. The petitioner challenged the termination through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was appointed at the pleasure of the Governor and was removed without notice and cause. It held that the withdrawal of pleasure was not based on unfettered discretion and was supported by valid reasons. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to prove malafides or that he was removed due to ulterior motives.
Issues: The issues involved the application of the doctrine of pleasure in employment termination, the burden of proof for establishing malafides, and the distinction between motive and foundation in termination orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the doctrine of pleasure does not allow arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious actions. It highlighted the need for valid reasons to support the withdrawal of pleasure and the heavy burden of proof for establishing malafides. The court also discussed the distinction between motive and foundation in termination orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the withdrawal of pleasure was not based on unfettered discretion and was supported by valid reasons. It found that the petitioner failed to prove malafides or that he was removed due to ulterior motives.
1. The petitioner retired from the post of Chairman-cumManaging Director, National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation in the year 2005. The petitioner was appointed in an honorary capacity as a Special Advisor (Energy) on 07.01.2006 by the Government of Uttarakhand. In addition to the above, the Government subsequently appointed the petitioner as a part time Director of the Corporation and also appointed the petitioner as Chairman of Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. w.e.f. 24.05.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed to ensure the commissioning of the Maneri Bhali Project within the stipulated period. The appointment of the petitioner was extended by the Government from time to time.
2. Things were moving smoothly, but from January 2010, the seeds of discontent started germinating. The petitioner contends that he came to know about the irregularities, indiscipline and corrupt practices being adopted by a certain section of the people and, accordingly, he brought such irregularities to the notice of the State Government.
3. The petitioner made a complaint against Mr. B. C. K. Mishra, Director (Operation), UJVNL about his corrupt practices and actions causing loss of image of the Nigam as well as the State Government and intimated the Principal Secretary (Energy) by a letter dated 07.01.2010 recommending that Mr. B. C. K. Mishra should be sent on three months leave pending enquiry against him. It is alleged that an intimation was also submitted to the Chief Minister inspite of which no action was initiated against him.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner's complaint against Mr. Mishra made the Energy Department turn against him which, in turn, started a chain reaction. It is submitted that a meeting of the Board of Directors was scheduled to be held on 21.05.2010. The Additional Secretary, Department of Energy wrote a letter dated 18.05.2010 to the petitioner to postpone the meeting on account of the non-availability of the Secretary, Energy. In response to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner intimated respondent no.5, by a letter dated 19.05.2010, that the decision to call a meeting of the Board of Directors vests with the Board of Directors and that the said meeting could not be adjourned at the behest of Secretary, Energy.
5. It is alleged that the Company Secretary of the Nigam, respondent no.4 received a phone call from respondent no.3, namely, the Additional Secretary, Department of Energy threatening respondent no.4 to cancel the meeting of the Board of Directors, failing which his services would be terminated. It is further alleged that respondent no.4 again rang up respondent no.3 directing him to send the intimation about the cancellation of the meeting, by fax, within 15 minutes. Respondent no.4 submitted the details of the conversation to the petitioner in writing, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure P-7/C . Since the meeting was not adjourned, it is alleged that respondent no.3 carried out the threat and an order dated 19.05.2010 was issued terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. By an order of the same date, respondent no.5 was appointed as the Chairman. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the writ petition.
6. Heard Dr. Anmol Ratan Siddhu, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Rakesh Nagpal and Mr. H. M. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Keshari Nath Tripathi, the learned senior counsel, Mr. S. N. Babulkar, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2, Mr. Vinay Kumar, the learned counsels for the respondent no.3 and Mr. V. K. Kohli, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. C. Pande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was malafide and was passed in a colourable exercise of power. The learned counsel submitted that the p
