Civil Appeal No 562 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated the 28th January 1985 of the Calcutta High Court in F M A T No 970 of 1984
Somnath Chatterjee H K Puri for the Appellants
section N Kacker 4
K Ganguli for the Respondents
The West Bengal State Electricity Board is the principal appellant in this appeal by special leave which we have just now granted
The first respondent a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board filed the writ petition out of which the appeal arises in the Calcutta High Court to quash an order dated march 22 1984 of the Secretary West Bengal State Electricity 1016 Board terminating his services as Deputy Secretary with immediate effect on payment of three month s salary in lieu of three month s notice
The order gave no reasons for terminating the services of the respondent and there was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to the respondent
Apparently the order was made under Regulation 34 of the Board s regulations which enables the Board to terminate the services of any permanent employee by serving three months  notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu there of 
The High Court contrasted Regulation 34 with Regulation 33 which provides for the termination of services of both permanent and temporary employees of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation as a result of the disciplinary action etc
For the sake of convenience we extract below Regulation 33 and the first paragraph which alone is relevant of Regulation 34 33 1 Unless otherwise specified in the appointment order in any particular case the services of a permanent employee of the Board may be terminated without notice i On his attaining the age of retirement or by reason of a declaration by the competent medical authority that he is unfit for further service or ii as a result of disciplinary action iii if he remains absent from duty on leave or other wise for a continuous period exceeding 2 years
2 In the case of a temporary employee his service may be terminated by serving of a one month s notice on other side or on payment of a month s salary in lieu thereof or b notice on either side for the period specified in the appointment order or contract or on payment of salary in lieu thereof as the case may be
c the service of a temporary employee shall also be deemed to have been terminated automatically if the period of extraordinary leave without pay andor of unauthorized absence from duties exceedings a maximum period of 90 days
1017 34
in case of a permanent employees his services A may be terminated by serving three months  notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof
 Contrasting Regulations 33 and 34 the High Court came to the conclusion that Regulation 34 was arbitrary in nature and suffered from the vice of enabling discrimination
The High Court therefore struck down the first paragraph of Regulation 34 and as a consequence quashed the order terminating the services of the first respondent
The learned counsel for the West Bengal State Electricity Board submitted that Regulation 34 did not offend article 14 of the Constitution that sec
18A and 19 of the Electricity Supply Act laid down sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power under Regulation 34 and in any case the power to terminate the services of a permanent employee was vested in higher ranking officials and might be expected to be exercised in a reasonable way
We are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the Board On the face of it the regulation is totally arbitrary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination It is a naked hire and fire  rule the time for banishing which altogether from employer employee relationship is fast approaching
Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII class so familiar to administrative lawyers In Moti Ram Deka vs North East frontier Railwayl Rules 148 3 and 149 3 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code were challenged on the ground that they were contrary to article 311 2 of the Constitution
The challenge was upheld though no opinion was expressed on the question whether the rule offended art 14 of the Constitution
Since then article 14 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court and conferment and exercise of arbitrary power on and by the State or its instrumentalities have been frowned upon and struck down 2 1018 as Regulation 34 confers on the Board in the present case
The learned judge struck down Regulation 48 a and we agree with his reasoning and conclusion
In Workman Hindustan Steel Ltd vs Hindustan Steel Ltdl this Court had occasioned to hold that a Standing Order which conferred such arbitrary uncanalised and drastic power to enable the employer to dispense with an inquiry and to dismiss an employee without assigning any reason by merely stating that it was expedient and against the interest of the security to continue to employ the workman was violative of the basic requirement of natural justice
The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Manohar P Kharkhar vs Raghuraj2 to contend that Regulation 48 of the Air India Employee s Service Regulations was valid
It is difficult to agree with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court that because of the complexities of modern administration and the unpredictable exigencies arising in the course of such administration it is necessary for an employer to be vested with such powers as those under Regulation 48
We prefer the reasoning of Sawant J Of the Bombay High Court and that of the Calcutta High Court in the judgment under appeal to the reasoning of the Delhi High Court
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs
M L A Appeal dismissed
1  2 1981 II LLJ 459


Summary:
First Paragraph of Regulation 34 of West Bengal State Electricity Board Regulations provides that in case of a permanents employee his services may be terminated by serving 3 months notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding Period in lieu thereof
The Secretary of the appellant Board terminated the services of first respondent a permanent employee with immediate effect on payment of three months  salary in lieu of three months notice without giving any reasons under Regulation 34 of the Board s Regulations
There was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to the respondent The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the impugned order
The High Court came to the conclusion that Regulation 34 was arbitrary in nature and suffered from the vice of enabling discrimination and therefore it struck down the first paragraph of Regulation 34 and as a consequence quashed the order terminating the services of the first respondent
In an appeal to this Court the appellant contended that section 18A and 19 of the Electricity Supply Act laid down sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power under Regulation 34 and in any case the power to terminate the services of a permanent employee was vested in higher ranking officials and might be expected to be exercised in a reasonable way and therefore Regulation 34 did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution
1015 Dismissing the appeal  HELD Article 14 has been interpreted in several decisions of the Court and conferment and exercise of arbitrary power on and by the State or its instrumentalities have been frowned upon and struck down by this Court as offending Article 14
1017G In the instant case on the face of it the Regulation is totally arbitrary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination
It is a naked hire and fire  rule the time for banishing which altogether from employer employee relationship is fast approaching Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII class so familiar to administrative lawyers
10 1017E F Workman Hindustan Steel Ltd vs Hindustan Steel Ltd  followed section section Muley vs J R D Tata and Ors 1979 2 section L R 438 approved
Moti Ram Deka vs North East frontier Railway   referred to
Manohar p Kharkhar vs Raghuraj 1981 II L L J 459 overruled