Chandam Manihar Singh vs State of Manipur and Others

H.K.K. Singh, J.—By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 19.10.98 by which he was removed from being the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board'').

I have heard Mr. Y. Imo Singh, the learned senior counsel Mr. N.P.C. Singh, and Mr. Sadananda Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, the learned Advocate General, Manipur with Mr. Mohindro Singh, advocate for the Respondents.

The Petitioner is a Graduate with Mathematics from the Gauhati University. He was elected as Member of the State Legislative Assembly in 1980 and again in the year 1990. He was also a Cabinet Minister in-charge of Agriculture, Horticulture & Soil Conservation and Command Area Development Authority. He also acted as the in-charge Chairman of Manipur Plantation Crops Corporation & Chairman of Agro Industries Corporation etc. He is an active member of the Indian National Congress.

The Petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Board under Order No. 11/2/88-STE(Pt) dated 16.10.96 on honorary capacity until further orders. Again under Order No. 11/2/88-STE(Pt) dated 28th October, 1997, in suppression of the previous order, another order was issued appointing him as Chairman of the Board on contract basis for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of his initial appointment which was made on honorary capacity. Thereafter vide notification dated 18.1.98 the Petitioner was removed from the Chairmanship of the Board. This notification was challenged by him by filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 91 of 1998 and under order dated 10.2.98 this Court suspended the order of removal of the Petitioner and ultimately the order of removal of the Petitioner/reconstitution of the Board was quashed by this Court''s order dated 11.8.98. Again, under Memorandum dated 14.9.98 the Respondent issued a notice u/s 5(3), read with Section 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act) to show cause why he should not be removed from the Chairmanship of the Board, copy of this notice is enclosed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition which was corrected under Corrigendum dated 19.9.98 (Annexure-A/9). 5. The impugned order of removal of the Petitioner from the Chairmanship of the Board was passed after giving him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. As noted above, the concerned notice dated 14.9.98 is at Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:

Government of Manipur Secretariat : Forest and Environment Memorandum

Imphal, the 14th Sept.''98 No. 11/2/88-STE(Pt) : Whereas Shri Chandam Manihar Singh of Ukhrul Konsam Leikai was appointed as the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board, Manipur on contract basis vide Govt. Order No. 11/2/88-STE(Pt) dated 28.10.1996:

And whereas Shri Singh as the Chairman of the said Board has issued under his own name and signature various appointment orders against non-existent post as die Officers and employees of the said Board. The details of the appointment orders issued by him under own name and signature are enclosed to this Memorandum as Annexures ''A'', ''B'', ''C and ''D''.

And whereas Sub-rule(7) of Rule 24 of the Manipur Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules 1991 provides that all order to be issued by the Board shall bear signature of the Member-Secretary or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Chairman;

And whereas the appointment orders issued by Shri Singh are in violation of the provisions of the said Rule 24(7); and whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the said appointment orders were issued by Shri Singh in abuse of his position as the Chairman of the said Board and that his continuance as the Chairman of the said Board is detrimental to the interest of the general public and Shri Singh cannot continue as the Chairman of the said Board as provided u/s 6(1)(g) of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974.

And whereas the State Govt. thinks fit to remove Shri Singh from the Chairmanship of the said Board.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 5(3) read with Section 6(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Shri Ch. Manihar Singh, Chairman, Manipur State Pollution Control Board, is hereby given an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make against his removal from the Chairmanship of the Board within 7 days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum, failing which it will be presumed that Shri Singh has no representation to make against his removal.

By Order & in the name of Governor Sd/- (P. Magha Singh) Under Secretary, Govt. of Manipur.

On receipt of the notice the Petitioner also submitted his representation against the proposed action and thereafter the impugned order of removal dated 19.10.98 contained in Annexure-A/16 was issued.

u/s 5 of the Act it is clearly stated that a member (which includes Chairman of the Board) shall hold office for a term of three years from the date of his nomination though this is subject to other provisions provided by or under the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 provides for removal of any member of the Board before expiry of his term of office. The concerned provision is extracted below:

Terms and conditions of service of members:

(1)Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, a member of a Board, other than a Member-Secretary, shall hold office for a term of three years from the date of his nomination.

Provided that a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

(2) The term of office of a member of a Board nominated under Clause (b) or Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 or Clause (b) or Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 shall come to an end as soon as the ceases to hold the office under the Central Government or the State Government or, as the case may be, the company or corporation owned, controlled or managed by the Central Government or the State Government, by virtue of which he was nominated.

(3) The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, remove any member of a Board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same.

(4) A member of a Board, other than the Member-Secretary may, at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed:

(a) in the case of Chairman, to the Central Government or, as the case may be State Government; and

(b) in any other case, to the Chairman of the Board;

(5) A member of a Board, other than the Member-Secretary, shall be deemed to have vacated his seat if he is absent without reason, sufficient in the opinion of the Board, from three consecutive meetings of the Board or where he is nominated under Clause (a) or Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 or under Clause (c) or Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 if he ceases to be a member of the State Board or of the local authority or, as the case may be, of the company or corporation owned, controlled or managed by the Central Government or the State Government and such vacation of seat shall, in either case, take effect from such dates the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify.

(6) A casual vacancy in a Board shall be filled by a fresh nomination and the person nominated to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the member in whose place he was nominated.

(7) A member of a Board shall be eligible for renommation.

(8) The other terms and conditions of service of a member of a Board, other than the Chairman and Member-Secretary, shall be such as may be prescribed.

(9) The other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman shall be such as may be prescribed.

Section 6 of the Act prescribes provision for disqualification of members. The same is also reproduced below:

Disqualification - (1) No person shall be a member of Board who:

(1) is, or at any time has been adjudged insolvent or has suspended payment of his debts or has compounds with his creditors, or

(b)is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court, or

(c) is, or has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government or, as the case may be, of the State Government, involves moral turpitude, or

(d) is, or at any time has been, convicted of an offence under this Act. or

(e) has directly or indirectly by himself or by any partner, any share or interest in any firm or company carrying on the business of manufacture, sale or hire of machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or fittings for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents, or

(f) is a director or a secretary, manager or other salaried officer or employee of any company or firm having any contract with the Board, or with the Government constituting the Board, or with a local authority in (he Slate, or with a company or corporation owned, controlled or managed by the Government, for the carrying out of sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents, or

(g) has so abused, in the opinion of (he Central Government or as the case may be. of the State Government, his position as a member, as lo render his continuance on the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public.

(2) No order of removal shall be made by the Central Government or the Stale Government, as the case may be, under this section unless the member concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) and (7) of Section 5, a member who has been removed under this section shall not be eligible for renomination as a member.

Thus, there are two different provisions for removal of a member. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 the Government may, if it thinks fit, remove any member of a Board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same as noted above. Again, under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 there is a provision for giving reasonable opportunity to the member before he is removed on the ground of disqualifications. In our present case, the provision of Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act is attracted. The notice that has been issued to the Petitioner and the action of removal that has been taken in the present case is a composite action under Sections 5 and 6 as disclosed in Annexure-A/7 and Annexure-A/16.

As per scheme of the Act the aforesaid two provisions are distinct and different. Removal u/s 5 is on the ground that the State Government thinks it fit, whereas under the provisions of Section 6 the removal is on the ground of disqualifications. Section 5 does not provides that a member who has been removed would not be eligible for renomination. Sub-section (7) of Section 5 prescribes that a member of the Board shall be eligible for renomination (as amended by Amendment Act No. 53 of 1988) whereas a member who has been removed on the ground of disqualifications is not eligible for renomination as a member (Sub-section (3) of Section 5).

For the purpose of our present case the ground for removal as distinctly spelt out in the notice (Annexure-A/7) and order of removal (Annexure-A/16) is that the Petitioner as the Chairman of the Board issued various appointment orders against non-existent posts as officers and employees of the Board. The details of the appointment orders issued by the Petitioner are found at Annexures-A, B, C, D, annexed to the Memorandum dated 14.9.98. We will first examine if the Petitioner has violated the provisions of the Manipur Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

In pursuance of resolutions passed by the legislatures of some of the States in India under Clause 1 of Article 252 of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Act. Originally the legislatures of the State of Manipur had not passed any such resolution. Subsequently under resolution being No. 36 dated 28.12.87, the Act had been adopted by the State of Manipur and in exercises of the powers u/s 64(1) of the Act, the Rules was framed and notified for the State of Manipur. The relevant provisions regarding the powers and duties of the Chairman are found in the Rules 22 and 23. The same are as under:

Powers and duties of the Chairman:

(1) The Chairman, shall have control over the day-to-day activities of the Board.

(2) The Chairman may undertake tours within India for carrying out the functions of the Board.

Provided that he shall keep the State Government and the Board, informed of his tours.

(3) Subject to Rules, if any, made under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 the Chairman shall have full powers in matters of promotion, confirmation, transfer and termination of service of the officers and employees of the Board.

(4) In matter of acceptance of tenders, the Chairman shall have full powers subject to the concurrence of the Board.

Provided that no such concurrence is required for the acceptance of tenders upto an amount of rupees ten thousand. However, even in such cases, the Board may be informed of the decision taken during its next meeting.

(5) Subject to overall sanctioned budget provision, the Chairman shall have full powers to administratively approve and sanction all estimates.

(6) The Chairman shall exercise all such powers as are delegated to the Head of Administrative Department of the State Government in case when powers are not specifically delegated, the sanction of the Government shall be required.

Creation and abolition of posts : The Board may create such posts as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may abolish any post; so created:

Provided that for the creation of and appointments to posts in the scale the maximum of which is above Rs. 3,300/- per month the Board shall obtain prior sanction of the State Government.

Again under Rule 24 the powers and duties of the Member-Secretary are given. The same are also reproduced below:

Powers and Duties of the Member-Secretary : The Member-Secretary shall be subordinate to the Chairman and shall, subject to the control of the Chairman exercise the following powers, viz:

(1) The Member-Secretary shall be in-charge of all confidential papers of the Board and shall be responsible for preserving them.

(2) The Member-Secretary shall produce such paper whenever so directed by the Chairman, or by the Board.

(3) The Member-Secretary shall make available to any member of the Board, for his perusal, any record of the Board.

(4)The Member-Secretary shall be entitled to call for the services of any officer or employees of the Board, and files, papers and documents for study from any department of the Board, as also to carry out inspection of any department at any time including checking of accounts, vouchers, bills and the records and other documents pertaining to the Board or any officer thereunder.

(5) The Member-Secretary may withhold any payment:

Provided that as soon as may be, after such withholding of payment the matters shall be placed before the Board for its approval.

(6) The Member-Secretary shall make all arrangements for holding meetings of the Board and meetings of the Committees constituted by the Board.

(7) All orders or instructions to be issued by the Board shall bear signature of the Member-Secretary or of any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Chairman.

(8)The Member-Secretary, shall authorise, sanction or pass all payments against allotments made or estimates sanctioned.

(9) The Member-Secretary shall write and maintain confidential reports of all Class-I and Class-II officers of the Board and whall get them countersigned by the Chairman.

(10) The member-Secretary shall countersign the confidential reports of all the Class-Ill employees of the Board.

(ii) The member-Secretary shall sanction the annual increments of Class-I and Class-II officers of the Board.

Provided that the increments of Class-I and Class-II officers shall be withhold only with the approval of the Chairman.

(11) The annual increments of the other employees of the Board not referred to Clause (i) shall be sanctioned by the Member-Secretary.

(12) The Member-Secretary shall have full powers for according technical sanction to all estimates.

13) The Member-Secretary shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be delegated to him from time to time either by the Chairman or by the Board.

Sub-rule (7) of Rule 24 provides that all orders or instructions to be issued by the Board shall bear signature of the Member-Secretary or of any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Chairman.

Mr. Y. Imo Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the so-called appointment orders issued by the Chairman as mentioned in Annexures-A, B, C and D annexed to Anenxure-A/7 to the writ petition are not appointment orders but these orders only ad interim and incharge arrangement made in respect of the officers/officials who are the employees of the Board, and the said arrangement had to be made for the smooth and better functioning of the Board. The learned senior counsel submitted that these posts were already in existence before the aforesaid arrangements were made. Mr. N.P.C. Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has supplemented the aforesaid arguments of Mr. Y. Imo Singh and submitted that the posts were in existence when the Petitioner made interim arrangements putting the offices/officials on incharge basis without incurring any additional expenses as the incumbents were to get their earlier pay for the posts they were already holding and further that these posts were created with the approval of the Government and subsequently their appointments were regularised by the duly constituted D.P.C.

Mr. T. Nandakumar, the learned Advocate General submitted that under the provisions of the Act employees of the Board are appointed by the Board (Section 12(3). But in the present case the Petitioner himself made the appointment. This, according to learned Advocate General is against the provision of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 24. The learned Advocate General also submitted that the aforesaid posts carry maximum scale above Rs. 3,300/- per month. Thus the Board could neither create nor made appointment to those posts without prior sanction of the State Govt. Thus, after considering the representation/statement of the Petitioner in response to the notice dated 14.9.98 and after considering all the relevant materials the State Government found that the Petitioner abused his position as Chairman of the Board and his continuance as Chairman of the Board was determined to the interest of the general public. Thus the learned Advocate General justified the impugned order of removal of the Petitioner.

Section 12 of the Act provides that subject to Rules as may be framed, Board may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Thus, it is clear that officers and employees of the Board are employees of the Board and appointment are to be made by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Rules as may be framed. As noted above, the State framed the Rules and it is admitted by learned Counsel of both sides that no regulation under Sub-section (3A) of Section 12 of the Act for regulating the matter of recruitment and also the terms and conditions of service of the officers (other than the Member-Secretary) and other employees of the Board has not been framed by the Board as yet.

In our present case, as noted above, a composite notice u/s 5(3) and Section 6(2) of the Act was given under Office Memorandum dated 14.9.98 (Annexure-A/7). Regarding the point as to whether the posts to which so called appointments were made were non-existent at the time of making the appointments or not, as seen from the letter dated 28th October, 1998 from the Member-Secretary of the Board addressed to the Principal-Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Manipur, it is found in Annexure-G/7 of the counter of the State-Respondents that all the four posts i.e. the posts of Environmental Engineer, Assistant Environmental Engineer, Senior Scientific Officer and the Administrative Officer which are mentioned in Annexures-A, B, C, D of the show cause notice (Annexure-A/7) were created on 6.9.97, 2.1.90, 17.9.97 and 10.4.97 respectively with the approval/sanction of the Government and the in-charge arrangement against these posts were made on 17.2.97 and 14.2.97. The copies of these orders are found at Annexures-A/7(1), A-7(2), A-7(3) and A-7(4) to rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner. Again the aforesaid in-charge arrangement was even regularised on 16.9.97 and 14.2.97 on the recommendation of a regular D.P.C. The said orders of regularisation/appointment are found at Annexures-A/17(1), A-17(2), A-17(3) and A-17(4) to the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner. Thus, it is clear that these posts were in existence as created with the approval/sanction of the Government before appointments were made, whether by way of in-charge arrangement or by regular appointment.

Regarding the point as to whether the Chairman himself made the appointment orders thereby violating the provisions of Rule 24(7) of the Rules, learned Advocate General submitted that the employees being the employees of the Board, they are to be appointed by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Rules i.e. Rule 24(7) of the Rules. Thus, according to learned Advocate General the so called appointment orders are not in accordance with the provisions of law. Rule 24(7) of the Rules prescribes that all orders or instructions to be issued by the Board shall bear signature of the Member-Secretary or of any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Chairman.

On this point Mr. Y. Imo Singh and also Mr. N.P.C. Singh submitted regarding the scheme of the Rule, more particularly the provisions of Rule 22(3) of the Rules wherein it is prescribed that subject to Rules as may be made under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act, the Chairman shall have full powers in matter of promotion, confirmation, transfer and termination of service of the officers and employees of the Board; and the Rule 22(6) of the Rules wherein it is prescribed that the Chairman shall exercise all such powers as are delegated to the Head of Administrative Department of the State Government in case when powers are not specifically delegated, the sanction of the Government shall be required. And the learned Counsel submitted that the Chairman who himself has the powers to authorise others to sign all orders of the Board may himself sign any order of the Board. Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that mere signing of the appointment orders by the Chairman would not amount to violating the provisions of the Rules and the learned Counsel also submitted that this practice of signing all such orders by the Chairman himself had been regularly followed. Again the learned Counsel also drawn my attention to Annexure-A/13 being/copies of appointment orders issued by the Meghalaya & Kerala State Pollution Control Boards in which the Chairman of the respective Boards signed the appointment orders. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that mere signing of the appointment orders by the Chairman himself, in the light of the submission/discussion as made above, may not render the appointment orders invalid.

On the point of prior sanction of the State Government for appointment to the posts in the scale, Rule 23 of the Rules provides that the Board may create such posts as it considers necessary. Again, it is also provided that in respect of creation of and appointments to posts in the scale the maximum of which is above Rs. 3,300/- per month, the Board shall obtain prior sanction of the State Government. In this regard drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-G/7 as mentioned above, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Member-Secretary of the Board wrote that prior approval of the Government for issue of the appointment orders were not obtained, learned Advocate General thus, submitted that it is a gross violation of the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. N.P.C. Singh in this regard submitted firstly that in the present case the action of the Government for removal of the Chairman is based upon the notice contained in Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition and in the aforesaid notice the appointments at Annexures-A, B, C and D to the notice are in respect of those so called in-charge arrangement be/ore the regularisation of the appointments. The learned Counsel submitted that in such a case the authority concerned cannot go beyond the contents of the notice and as such question of prior approval of the Government is not called for in respect of in-charge arrangement which were made for efficient performance and function of the Board. Secondly, the learned Counsel submitted that the so called appointments at Annexures-A, B, C, D to the notice were regularised subsequently by a regular D.P.C. in which the third member was none other than the Commissioner of the concerned department i.e. Forest and Environment who represented the Government. Further the learned Counsel submitted that these appointment orders become necessary for efficient performance of the function of the Board and there has been a direction from the Central Pollution Control Board and also the Central Government.

The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the letter dated 7.2.95 of the Central Pollution Control Board (Annexure-A/14). The same is reproduced below:

To Shri H.V. Goswami Chairman, Manipur Pollution Control Board Langol Housing Complex Langol, Imphal-795004 Manipur. Sub : Follow up action on the report on strengthening of State Pollution Control Board.

Sir,

You may recall that the report on strengthening of State Boards was prepared by the sub-group headed by Shri G.S. Obsroi, Chairman, Punjab Board. The report and the recommendations contained therein, were discussed in a meeting held on September 23, 1994 at the Indian International Centre, Delhi and the report was presented to Hon''ble Minister for Environment & Forests who was present in the meeting. The recommendations that emerged from the report and discussion in the meeting including the following:

(i) The Boards should be authorised to create the posts and appoint all categories of employees.

(ii) Tenure of Chairman & Member Secretaries should not be less than 5 years as has been decided by Govt. of India in case of Chief Executive of Public Sector Undertakings.

(iii) Schedule 1 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 be amended by Govt. of India by adding new industries as approved in 39th meeting of the Chairman & Member Secretaries.

(iv) Govt. of India should make adequate provisions in the Annual Budget for assisting State Boards on the basis of matching grant from State Govt.

(v) Cess on Air consumed on the pattern of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 may be levied. It can be collected on the basis of quantity and type of fuel consumed.

I am happy to inform you that the cess reimbursement formula, recommended in their report, has been accepted by the Govt. A communication in this regard has already been sent to all the Chairman of the Pollution Control Boards/Committees through letter No. CCB/79/1994 dated December 7, 1994. It is further informed that other recommendations of the sub-group are under consideration in the Ministry of Environment & Forest.

Yours faithfully Sd/- (S.P. Chakrabarti) Member, Secretary

Again the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter dated 28.8.1997 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which is also reproduced below:

To Shri Annayak James Tayeng Commissioner (Environment & Forest) Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal. Sub : Strengthening of State Pollution Control Boards. Sir,

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of d.o. letter No. Q.14011/11/96-CPW, dated 20.8.96 and d.o. No. B-12013/43/AS-96, dated 6.9.1996 of Secretary (E&F) addressed to Chief Secretaries of all States/UT on the above mentioned subject. You are requested to make necessary action for lifting the embargo, if any, on creation of posts which are essential for discharging the statutory functions of the Manipur Pollution Control Board.

Yours faithfully Sd/- (G.K. Pandey) Director

Here, the learned Counsel has submitted that u/s 18 of the Act the Central Government has the power to give direction to the State Board and the State-Board is found by such direction in writing. Again if any direction given by the Central Board is inconsistent with the direction given by the State Government then the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision and again if the Central Government is of the opinion that any State Board has defaulted in complying with the directions given by the Central Board then it may, by order, direct the Central Board to perform any of the functions of the State Board in relation to such area for such period specified in the order. Thus, the State Board was to carry out any of the directions as given by the Central Government and by the Central Board. The learned Counsel, thus, submitted that the entire action of the Petitioner in issuing the appointment orders was bona fide and it is only for the improvement in functioning of the Board and thus the action of the Respondents was not called for.

As noted above, the Petitioner was removed by a composite order passed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act and the basis on which the action has ''been taken being the same as already discussed above. Now it is to be seen if by exercising the power of the judicial review the High Court should interfere in the matter. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act the State Government is empowered to remove any member "if it think fit" whereas u/s 6 of the Act the mandate of law is that no person shall be a member of the Board if he is subject to any of the disqualifications as enumerated in Sub-clause (a) to (g) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6.

Our case falls within Sub-clause (g) of Sub-section 1 of Section 6 wherein State Government may exercise its powers to remove any member only when "it is of the opinion that the member has so abused his position as to render his continuance of the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public." As noted above, in the present case, the opinion of the Government has to be formed only from the materials disclosed in the notice served upon the Petitioner giving him opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action of removal. This act of the Government is in the nature of a quasi judicial procedure. It cannot be presumed that wide discretionary power was conferred upon the Government in this regard. Even if it is a power of administrative action simpliciter, it is well accepted principle that administrative action should be exercised fairly, reasonably and justly.

As noted above, no regulation u/s 12(3A) of the Act has been framed. There is no statutory provision regulating the procedure for removal except that provision for a statutory notice for giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause is found in Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.

In this regard the statutory notice as noted above mentions only two facts, namely. (1) the Chairman made appointments against non-existent posts; (2) the Chairman signed the appointment orders in violation of Sub-rule(7) of Rule 24 of the Rules. Nowhere it is mentioned in the notice that the Chairman made any appointment without prior sanction of the Government. When an action like the present one for removal from office of Chairman of a State Board is taken up the provisions contained in the law has got to be strictly followed and complied with. If the point regarding lack of prior sanction has not been included in the notice then this fact cannot be used against the Petitioner. It has already been noted above that this action is a quasi judicial act in which the principle of audi alterame partem which is an important limb of the principles of natural justice has to be followed and if no allegation has been mentioned in the notice/charge levelled against the Petitioner, no action can be taken on the basis of the material which was not found in the notice.

The posts were in existence as the same were created with the approval/sanction of the Government before appointments were made and on the point of signing by the Chairman by himself I have already noted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Chairman may sign in such appointment orders issued for appointment of employees of the Board is not impermissible in view of the scheme of the Rules and Act as force.

Lastly, learned Advocate General submitted that the Boards is a body corporate having perpetual succession and the term of office of a member is 3 years and in case of any casual vacancy, newly nominated member shall hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the member in whose place he was nominated Section 2(6). In the present case, the Petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Board on 16.10.96 against the vacancy caused when the then Chairman Dr. Nimaichand Luwang who was also appointed as Chairman on 5.5.95 demitted the office when he ceased to be the Minister and as such the term of office of the Petitioner will be counted at least from 5.5.95 and by afflux of time the Petitioner cannot be the Chairman now. Again the learned Advocate General relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, submitted that even if the term of office is counted from his first appointment on 16.10.96 there is not much time left and as such learned Advocate General submitted for not quashing the impugned order of removal. It is also submitted by him that subsequent to the removal of the Petitioner the Minister, Forest and Environment has been nominated as Chairman of the Board and as such learned Advocate General prayed for not disturbing the present arrangement by keeping the whole matter at rest.

It appears that so far, the procedure prescribed for nominating the Chairman of the Board has not been followed. The Act even prescribes some qualifications for being the Chairman of the Board and as such the appointment should be made to the person and not by office. But in the State generally the practice is of appointing the Minister in-charge as Chairman of the Board. This is not contemplated by law. In fact, if the Chairman is to be changed due to reshuffling of the Cabinet then it will be very difficult to properly determine the remainder of the term in case of any vacancy. Again, it appears that on every nomination of a new Chairman or any other member the entire Board is again reconstituted. This is also not contemplated by law. The Government may look into the matter so that laws are complied with properly. And considering the fact and it has become very difficult to calculate the remainder of the term to be served by the newly nominated member to fill a casual vacancy I am of the opinion that the term of the Petitioner shall be counted from his initial appointment i.e. 16.10.96. And he should be allowed to continue till the completion of full term of 3 years. The decision cited by the learned Advocate General is distinguishable from our present case on point of the length of the remainder of the term of office.

For the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.10.98 removing the Petitioner from being the Chairman of the Board is quashed. Consequently it is ordered that the Petitioner shall be reinstated as Chairman of the Board forthwith with all the entitlements with effect from the date of his removal and he should be allowed to continue to be the Chairman of the Board till completion of full term of 3 (three) years. Under the facts and circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs.