Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In the counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 stated that there is no specific tenure fixed for a Managing Director of KINFRA and that as per Section 6 of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short) which deals with the term of office of Managing Directors and conditions of services of nominated Director, the Managing Director of the Corporation shall hold office for such term as the Government may specify in this behalf. The Directors shall be entitled to draw allowances as prescribed under the Rules made under the Act. Under Rule 3 of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Rules, 2008 the Directors nominated by the Government under sub section 2 of Section 5 shall ordinarily hold office for a term of 2 years. However, the Government shall have the power to remove such Directors before the expiry of the said term, if found necessary. The term of office of the Managing Director of the Corporation shall be as fixed by the Government in the order of appointment. However, the Government may, at any time terminate the services of such Managing Director without assigning any reason. Therefore, it is stated that it was upto the Government to fix the term and even if term is fixed, to order termination even before its expiry, as per the rules as well as Ext.R1(c) order issued by the Government on 20.05.2009. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner who joined as Managing Director after accepting the terms and conditions, cannot be heard to raise any contention relating to completion of any term or about any requirement of notice before termination. According to Government, Ext.P7 order issued in the year 2006 does not have any force or relevance in respect of any term of appointment. It is stated that the term of appointment of petitioner was fixed in Ext.P10 order upto 25.07.2019 and his services were terminated on that day. According to them there is no deviation from the practice in KINFRA and the manner of appointment was the same in the case of Sri.Gopala Pillai who was relieved on 07.06.2006 as per Ext.R1(f) order. It is stated that being the Managing Director the petitioner was aware of the negotiations going on with respect to the LAA cases of Ramanattukara and he himself had authorised the officials to attend the mediation. It is stated that the Vigilance Department of the Government has as per Ext.R1(i) letter dated 06.08.2019, already directed a vigilance enquiry into the loss caused to KINFRA due to lapses in conducting the case against Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd., in respect of resumption of land leased to it. It is stated that orders of termination are effected in other PSUs also, as done in Ext.R1(j) order dated 18.02.2019. According to them, the termination is effected in accordance with Section 6 of the Act and Managing Director of a PSU has to hold office at the pleasure of Government and the Government shall have the right to remove him at any time. It is stated that the additional 4th respondent is fully qualified to be appointed as the Managing Director.

7. In the additional counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 stated that the term fixed in the case of others in 1994, 1997, etc as the Managing Director cannot be treated as a precedent, because of the advancement in the sector of industrial and infrastructure in tune with the global developments in various aspects like economy, population, etc. It is further stated that the additional 4 th respondent who was appointed in his place is having all the requisite qualifications and he had submitted Ext.R1(i) application for the sectors Development&Infrastructural Agencies, Engineering and Electrical Equipment and Electronics. At the same time it is stated that in Ext.R1(k) application submitted by the petitioner his preference was only for the sectors of Engineering, and Electrical Equipment and Electronics. Relying on Ext.R1(m) attendance sheet for the interview held on 07.09.2016, it is stated that the petitioner had not applied for the industrial sector whereas Mr.Santhosh Koshy Thomas had applied for it. According to the respondents a selection process as per Ext.P18 G.O on 26.05.2018 was not necessary when qualified hands were available for appointments. It is further stated that there is a practice of appointing Managing Director of one PSU as the Managing Director of another PSU as the selection was on the basis of a single process and the additional 4th respondent was found eligible and competent to be the Managing Director of PSU. According to them petitioner deviated from his duty as Managing Director in dealing with the case pending before the Madhyapradesh High Court in respect of resumption of land from M/s.Zoom Developers and he failed to safeguard the interest of KINFRA.

8. Additional respondent nos.3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits stating that petitioner did not even submit application for appointment in the sector Development&Infrastructure whereas the 4th respondent had applied for the same. According to them it is not necessary to assign reasons or issue notice before termination of the appointment of petitioner. According to them the works which the petitioner claimed to have completed or were nearing completion, were already completed even before he took charge. It is stated that the litigation before the MadhyaPradesh High Court against M/s.Zoom Developers started during the tenure of petitioner and it resulted in adverse orders against KINFRA since petitioner did not take any steps to safeguard its interest.

10. The petitioner filed reply affidavits to the counter affidavits of all the respondents. He stated that even if no reason is to be assigned while terminating the services, reasons should be available in the files leading to the termination. He stated that the notes furnished along with Ext.P20 letter dated 17.09.2019 of the State Public Information Officer do not reveal any reason for termination of his service; on the other hand it would appear that there was no reason at all as evident from the noting of the Principal Secretary that due process for removal was not followed as per the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner he was relieved at the instance of the Private Secretary to the Minister of Industries Department. It was also pointed out that the information relating to the appearance of the concerned Government Pleader in the land acquisition cases who represented the state when his wife was the Counsel appearing for the claimants, was not brought to his notice by the official of KINFRA who was dealing with the matter; it is stated that he had already issued memos to that official for not furnishing the relevant information. He also stated that the lease of land to M/s.Zoom Developers and its resumption in 2016 took place prior to his joining as the Managing Director. It was also stated that he acted on the advice of the standing counsel of KINFRA. Petitioner also produced Exts.P21 to P24 pointing out that his appointment as the Managing Director in KINFRA was on the basis of his performance in the interview whereas the application of the 4th respondent in the Development&Infrastructure sector was rejected and no other person was selected for KINFRA. He also pointed out that Government have appointed Managing Directors in various Public Sector Undertakings from the select list prepared by the Public Enterprises Selection Board and the method of selection has been modified in 2019 and therefore the 4 th respondent is not a person who is selected in accordance with rules for appointment as the Managing Director of KINFRA.