The doctrine of pleasure does not give the government unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. The burden of establishing malafides is heavy on the person who alleges it, and vague and casual allegations suggesting ulterior motives cannot be accepted without proper pleadings and adequate proof.

Tarun Agarwala, J.

1. The petitioner retired from the post of Chairman-cum-Managing 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