Case: Parbodh Sagar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board &amp; Ors

3. The challenge, however is based on two principle countson the first it is the issue of mala fides and on the second it is the uncommunicated adverse reports; undoubtedly both these counts are rather serious in nature and success in regard to any one of the counts would entitle the appellant herein to appropriate relief. Before, however, embarking on to a detail discussion pertaining to thetwin issues the factual backdrop ought to be adverted at this juncture.4. The petitioner being a Chartered Accountant joined the Respondent Electricity Board as an Accounts Officer on 15th April, 1988 and was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer retrospectively with effect from 29th January, 1989 in pursuance of an order passed on 21st August, 1990. The Respondent No. 3 happens to be the Member, Finance and Accounts while the Respondent No. 4 the Chief Auditor of the Board. It is, however, on record that both the above named respondents have retired from the services of the Board.

Reasoning:
9. In the wake of the aforesaid, question of acting beyond the jurisdiction or without jurisdiction in so far as the issuance of the order by Shri T.S. Gujral does not and cannot arise. Paragraph 6 of the allocation amply authorises Shri Gujral to exercise his powers thereunder and to pass appropriate orders in regard thereto on the basis of the recommendations of the High Power Committee. We do not see any infraction of law neither there is any exercise of power in contravention of rules or regulation or authorisation and in that view of the matter we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions of theAs noted above, the High Court has not highlighted this aspect of the matter, though the same were brought to the notice the High Court, we do not know for what reasons, neither we intend to delve into it but the fact remains that the comment of the learned Advocate appearing of the Board during the course of hearing before this Court that the litigatious spirit of the petitioner has, in fact, brought into effect the exercise of jurisdiction of the writ court to a ludicrous extent. We do find some justification in the criticism of the learned Advocate for the Boardthe conduct of the PetitionerAppellant herein. The Petitioner has been, as noted above, from 1989 onwards engaged himself in the law courts rather than exerting himself in an effort to improve his capability as the employee of the Board so that the Board and the State obtain maximum benefit from out of the services of thebut unfortunately his litigatious spirit prevailed upon him and as noticed above we do find some justification as regards the comment made by the learned Advocate appearing for theourselves feel it expedient to record that the petitioner has become more a liability than an asset and in the event of there being such a situationan employee, the employer will be within its liberty to take appropriate steps including the cessation of relationship between the employer and the employee. The service conditions of the Boards employees also provide for Voluntary Retirement, a person of the nature of the petitioner, as more fully detailed herein before, cannot possibly be given any redress against the order of the Board for Voluntary Retirement. There must be factual support pertaining to the allegations of mala fides, unfortunately there is none. Mere user of the word `mala fide by the petitioner would not by itself make the petition entertainable. The Court must scan the factual aspect and come to its own conclusion i.e. exactly what the High Court has done and that is the reason why the narration have been noted in this judgment in extenso. Tampering of the Annual Confidential Rolls have been alleged but there is no evidence in regard thereto or even to link up the two private respondents therewith. While it is true that the earlier relationship between an employer and employee or between the employees was that of mutual trust, confidence or welfare, presently the situation in general stands polluted and may be even one degree higher than the pollution of the environment, but that does not however clothe the court to come to a conclusion of mala fide without there being any basic evidence being made available to the court.On the facts narrated above, no reasonable man can come to a conclusion, which may even be remotely different from that of the appropriate authority of the Board. A right has been conferred on to the Board to take steps in public interest and in the event the Court comes to a conclusion that a right has not been properly exercised, there would not have been any hesitation to strike down the action of the State Electricity Board, but in the contextual facts, we do not find any. There is available on record reasonings to the issue of the formation of opinion and the same cannot but in the contextual facts is in accordance with the need of the situation. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions in support of the Appeal.