TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner entitled to salary, removal upheld, appointment validated, adverse report challenge dismissed.</h1> The court partially allowed the writ petition, recognizing the petitioner's entitlement to the salary of a Joint Director, Industries Department, upon ... Removal of Director Issues Involved:1. Legality of the petitioner's removal from the office of Managing Director and cancellation of his nomination as Director.2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the salary of a Joint Director, Industries Department, after reversion.3. Validity of the appointment of respondent No. 9 as Deputy Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.4. Challenge to the adverse confidential report given by respondent No. 8.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Petitioner's Removal from the Office of Managing Director and Cancellation of His Nomination as Director:The petitioner challenged his removal from the office of Managing Director and the cancellation of his nomination as Director of the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. The court held that the State Government was competent to exercise powers under the articles of association of the Corporation and remove the petitioner from his post as Managing Director and cancel his nomination as Director. The Corporation, being a State-owned entity, was controlled by the State Government, and the Governor's role was interpreted as part of the executive power of the State. The court concluded that the Governor's actions were essentially the actions of the State Government, thus validating the removal and cancellation orders (annexures 'G' and 'H').2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Salary of a Joint Director, Industries Department, After Reversion:The petitioner claimed entitlement to the salary of a Joint Director, Industries Department, upon his reversion from the Corporation. The court examined the service history and concluded that the petitioner was appointed as Joint Director on an officiating basis and continued to hold this status while on deputation. The court held that on reversion from foreign service, the petitioner was entitled to be posted back to his original post of Joint Director, Industries, in the same scale of pay he was drawing before deputation. The court noted that the petitioner could be reverted to his substantive post of Secretary to a Minister only by a competent authority in accordance with law. The court also referenced a directive from the Central Government protecting the petitioner's officiating pay under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.3. Validity of the Appointment of Respondent No. 9 as Deputy Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister:The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 9 as Deputy Principal Secretary, claiming it violated his fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment. The court found that the post was created for administrative convenience by abolishing the posts of Superintendent and Secretary in the Chief Minister's Secretariat. The court noted that the State Government had considered the petitioner for the post but found him unsuitable due to adverse confidential reports and pending vigilance cases. The appointment process involved the Public Service Commission, which approved respondent No. 9's appointment. The court held that the appointment was valid and did not violate Article 16 of the Constitution.4. Challenge to the Adverse Confidential Report Given by Respondent No. 8:The petitioner sought to quash the adverse confidential report given by respondent No. 8, alleging mala fides. The court held that the matter of a confidential report was not justiciable and that respondent No. 8, as Chairman of the Corporation and Secretary to the Government, was entitled to give a confidential report based on his impressions of the petitioner's integrity and efficiency. The court found no substantial evidence to support the petitioner's allegations of malice and concluded that the adverse report could not be challenged in these proceedings.Conclusion:The court partially allowed the writ petition by recognizing the petitioner's entitlement to the salary of a Joint Director, Industries Department, upon reversion. However, it upheld the legality of the petitioner's removal from the Corporation, the validity of respondent No. 9's appointment, and dismissed the challenge to the adverse confidential report. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
