HC junks petition against termination of MPCB chairman
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, October 26 2023: The High Court of Manipur has rejected a petition filed by former chairman of Manipur Pollution Control Board (MPCB) Laishram Radhakishore challenging a previous court order that upheld his termination from the MPCB chairman's position.

The court stated that the decision made by a single judge of the high court on March 14, 2023, was well-considered and should not be interfered with.

The petitioner submitted that he was appointed as chairman of MPCB on March 24, 2017 for a tenure of three years.

MPCB was reconstituted on July 30, 2021 and he continued as chairman for another tenure of three years from July 30, 2021 .

However, on July 14, 2022, another person (third respondent in the petition) was appointed as the new chairman, leading to a legal challenge that resulted in quashing of the appointment of the new chairman.

The government was instructed to reconsider the appellant's claim, as per the procedure outlined in Section 5(3) or Section 6 (2) Manipur Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.On September 9, 2022, the appellant received a show-cause notice, alleging his involvement in the appointment of 107 employees in MPCB without the state government's approval.

On September 16, 2022, the appellant responded to the notice, but on September 20, 2022, the state government terminated his position as chairman, replacing him with the third respondent.

The appellant contested the termination order on the ground that his service could not be terminated before the completion of his three-year tenure.

Additionally, he argued that the termination violated the court's earlier order.

The appellant also defended his appointment of 107 employees, claiming it was in accordance with the NGT's directives.

Upon a thorough review of the termination order, the court observed that it was evident that the termination occurred only after giving the appellant an opportunity to explain the allegations and considering his response submitted on September 16, 2022 .

Therefore, it could not be claimed that the termination order violated the court s earlier directive.

The allegation against the appellant was that he had appointed 107 MPCB employees without the state government's approval.

He maintained that these appointments were in line with the NGT's order from February 5, 2021, and a letter dated February 26, 2021.As such, he argued that there was no illegality in the appointments.

The court, after examining some of the appointment orders filed with the appeal, found that all appointments were made in 2018, not 2021 as claimed.

The court considered Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules and the argument that the appellant had made illegal appointments without state government's consent and in violation of a forest department order from September 5, 1998 .

It was also alleged that there were malpractices in issuing the appointment orders.

The state government followed the required procedures outlined in Section 5(3) and Section 6(2) of the 1974 Act and the applicable rules before terminating the appellant s service.

After assessing the third respondent's suitability, the state government appropriately appointed him as the new chairman, the court observed.

The court concluded that the single judge had not erred in their decision and that there was no merit in the writ petition.

The well-considered judgment of the single judge should not be interfered with, and as such, the writ appeal was dismissed, the order said.

Comment