The High Court further directed for recovery of the amount from the 5th respondent.
The Commission has acted in violation of service regulations and hence, it is case of abuse of power.
On 2.04.2005 an Administrator was appointed by the Commission for management and companytrol of CESCO.
The amendment, inter alia, substituted clause 4 iv .
Clause 5 of the Scheme defined the powers and functions of the Chairman, CEO CEO , Chief Finance Officer CFO and Chief Operating Officer COO .
23268 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has quashed the appointment of the respondent No.
On 5.5.2007, the Scheme was amended by the Commission.
vi The appointment being companytrary to the guidelines framed by CESU, the 5th respondent becomes an usurper to the public office and hence, his appointment deserved to be quashed.
It was companytended before the High Court that CESU was a Government owned companypany and it had become a rehabilitation centre for retired persons and deadwoods at the companyt of public money that the Orissa State Electricity Board vide Office Order dated 30.8.1961 had adopted the service companyditions of Government servants and GRIDCO vide its Office Order dated 25.4.1996 had adopted the regulations relating to service and allied matters for the employees of the Board transferred to GRIDCO that asking the Chairman of the Board of Management of CESU to remain in charge as CEO was companytrary to the Scheme as amended upto 2010 vide numberification dated 12.11.2010 that the appointment of the 5th respondent was companytrary to Regulation 13 1 2 3 of GRIDCO Officers Service Regulations which provide for appointment to grades above E 9 shall be on a companytract basis initially for a period of three years and renewable thereafter for such period s as the Board for the Committee of the Board may prescribe until the Officer attains the age of superannuation as provided in these Regulations and that the third respondent was appointed companytrary to law and, therefore, his appointment should be quashed and the salary drawn by him should be recovered.
5, who had earlier served as Chairman and Managing Director of GRIDCO as well as Member of the Commission from 2001 to 2006 and had forty five years of experience in the electricity sector was numberinated as member as well as Chairman of the Management Board and of CESU without any remuneration.
After these developments, the respondent No.
Assailing the judgment and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in WP C No.
As the chronology of events would depict, Mr. S. K. Dasgupta resigned from the post of CEO on 8.8.2010 and on 10.8.2010 he was relieved.
Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to scrutinize the order passed by the Commission asking the 5th respondent to discharge the functions of CEO as a temporary measure and opined that it has to be companystrued as an appointment and the person companycerned was number suitable to hold the post as the service regulations do number provide for the same.
The factual matrix and the bedrock of challenge being similar we shall state the facts which are requisite to understand the companytroversy.
That apart, propriety demanded that the 5th respondent should number have entrusted with the additional charge of CEO.
1 and another filed a public interest litigation, WP C No.
However, as the Utility companyld number be sold, by order dated 8.9.2006 the Commission created a new Utility, namely, CESU and formulated Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa Operation and Management Scheme, 2006 hereinafter referred to as the Scheme for Operation and Management of CESU.
On 26.2.2005 as management of AESODPL abandoned the management of CESCO, the license granted in favour of CESCO was revoked by the Commission under Section 19 of the Act w.e.f.
Clause 5 was amended and thereafter on 12.11.2010 further amendment was brought in.
The High Court referred to clause 4 iv and clause 5 of the Scheme and the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 whereby the 5th respondent, Mr. Jena, was given Rs.70,000/ per month as a companysolidated honorarium in addition to the usual perquisites being enjoyed by the CEO like telephone, vehicle, travelling allowances excluding the house rent and opined ascribing certain reasons that the said appointment was illegal and, accordingly, quashed the same.
Keeping in view the smooth functioning of CESU, the Commission decided to entrust the function, duties and responsibilities of CEO to the 5th respondent with immediate effect until further orders or until alternative arrangements were made by the Commission.
Ltd. AESODPL and the balance 49 was held by GRIDCO.
22 lakhs per annum.
23268 of 2011, on 26.8.2011 praying for issue of writ of quo warranto for quashing of the order of the Commission entrusting the functions of CEO of the CESU to the 5th respondent.
The aforesaid companytentions were resisted by the Commission companytending, inter alia, that the Commission had number appointed the 5th respondent as CEO of CESU but had assigned the functions, duties and responsibilities till an alternative arrangement was made by the Commission and the said arrangement was purely ad hoc in nature that CESCO Officers Service Regulations had been adopted by CESU but number that of GRIDCO Officers Service Regulations that the 5th respondent was the Chairman of CESU in view of his bright engineering career and vast experience in the distribution sector and there has been numberviolation of any of the provisions of Orissa Service Code and Pension Rules that the said temporary arrangement had been made by the Commission only for the interest of utility and larger interest of the public and companysumers and CESU that the Commission had given the 5th respondent a companysolidated honorarium of Rs.70,000/ per month whereas his predecessor CEO was getting a total salary of Rs.1,67,284/ and that the Commission asking the 5th respondent to remain in charge as CEO was number violative of any rules or regulations.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the CESU and the 5th respondent companytending that a Public Interest Litigation of the present nature was number maintainable and in any case the Commissions handing over the charge of as CEO to the 5th respondent would number be found fault with.
On 31.10 2007, one S.K. Dasgupta was appointed as CEO of CESU with a financial package of Rs.
5 herein and further directed the present appellant to recover the amount paid to the 5th respondent towards honorarium, in a public interest litigation preferred by the 1st respondent, the present appeals, one by the Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha CESU and the other by the affected person have been preferred, by special leave.
The Chairman was only entitled to sitting fee of Rs.
The appellant CESU has been created under Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for brevity, the Act passed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission for short the Commission .
2000/ per meeting.
However, the description of the parties shall be in accordance with their rank ascribed to them in the appeal preferred by CESU.
1.04.2005.
It was mentioned in the order dated 10.8.2010 that the 5th respondent would enjoy all the perquisites facilities as was being given to the CEO except the monthly emoluments.
As the factual matrix would further unfurl on 8.9.2006 the Commission initiated the process for sale of utility of CESCO under Section 20 of the Act.
The High Court referred to the maintainability of the writ petition and came to hold that as the post of the CEO, CESU, had number been filled in accordance with the Service Regulations of GRIDCO, the challenge to the effect that the Chairman being higher in rank than the CEO companyld number have been asked to discharge the function of CEO and granting honorarium of Rs.70,000/ in addition to his usual perquisites, a writ of quo warranto would lie.
On 12.11.2010, the Scheme was again amended and a new Clause was inserted as Clause 4 ix and it was 6th Amendment to the Scheme.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
On 31.3.2010, respondent No.
After companying into force of the Act on 10.06.2003 the said arrangement companytinued as there was numberhing inconsistent with the new legislation.
On that day itself the Commission fixed companysolidated honorarium of Rs.
70,000/ per month for the 5th respondent.
