STATE OF ASSAMversusP.C. MISHRA, L.A.S. AND ORS. ETC

                          STATE OF ASSAM                                          A
                                  .v.
                  P.C. MISHRA, l.A.S. AND ORS. ETC.

                            OCTOBER 20, 1995

             [J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.j                                B

      Public Administration :

       State Goven11nent-C/1ief Secretmy applying for leave-Chief Minister
ordeling Additional Chief Secretmy to be incharge of Chief Secretary until        C
fwther orders-Govemment Notification giving effect to Chief Minister's order
after expi1y of leave ~ Confusion as to actual status of two officers resulting
in conflict and Govenznzent's conunents on conduct of one of the officers
leading to litigation before Central Administrative Tlibunal--Tlibunal passing
adverse remarks against Chief Secretmy-Held, government should have
clalified position to avoid conflict which jeopardised proper functioning of D
State Administration-Adverse remarks expunged-High Officials to exercise
power in public interest.

       Respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 9560/95 was Chier Secretary
 orthe appellant State in November 1990. On 8. 11.1990 he applied for leave       E
 and the Chier Minister ordered that respondent No. 1, the Additional Chier
 Secretary, would be in charge or Chier Secretary until rurther orders.
 Though the Chier Secretary on 9.11.1990 had clarified that he would be on
 casual leave for 9.11.1990 and 10.11.1990, Government Notification dated
 11.11.1990 was issued posting respondent No. 1 as Chier Secretary, who
 claimed to have assumed charge 011 12.11.1990. Later, by order dated             F
.28.11.1990 the Government notified the appointment or respondent No. 2
 as Chier Secretary.

      Meanwhile, an incident led to· the controversy about the exact status
or respondent No. 1 on 12.11.1990. On that date a lady ofticer, in the rank       G
or Joint Secretary, made a complaint to the Chier Secretary, against
respondent No. 1. Respond.en! No. 2 as Chier Secretary sent the said
complaint the same day to respondent No. 1 addressing him as Additional·
Chier Secretary, to clarity the position. The latter treating himselr to be
the Chier Secretary on 12.11.90 did not give clarification to Respondent
~1                                                                                H
                                     515
    516                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         The Government issued an order on 10.lll.1991 conveying its dis-
    pleasure to respondent No. l for his indecorous and uncalled fot be·
    haviour with foe junior lady otlicer. The protest made by respondent no.
    l was of no avail and the State Government by its order dated 8.9.1992
    confirmed the earlier order dated 10.10.9L Respondent No. l challenged
    the orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed
B   both the orders passed by the State Government and made adverse
    remarks against the Chief Secretary, respondent no. 2. Aggrieved, the State
    Government filed the appeals by special leave.

          It was agreed by the parties that adverse remarks made against the
C Chief Secretary, respondent No. 2, in the impugned order of the Tribunal
    should be quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the State did not
    press the appeals.

          Disposing of the appeals '"'"·' . -~difying the order of the Tribunal,
    this Court
D
           HELD : LL The mode of functioning of the State Government which
    led to rival claims by the respondents of holding the office of Chief
    Secretary on 12.lL1990, leaves much to be desired. It does appear that the
    situation resulted from certain ambiguous orders made by the State
E   Government on request of respondent No. 2 on 8.11.1990 to proceed on
    leave in spite his clarification on 9.11.1990 of going only on two days causal
    leave. At any rate, some confusion having arisen soon thereafter on
    12.11.1990 on the stand taken by the lady joint Secretary, Department of
    personnel and respondent No. 2 having purported to exercise the authority
    of Chief Secretary on the same day, it was essential for the State Govern-
F   ment to have clarified the position immediately to avoid any escalation 01·
    that conflict which in turn jeopardised proper functioning of the State
    Administration. [520-H, 521-A-B]

          1.2. It is even more unfortunate that some of the senior most officers of
G the Indian Administrative Service at the helm of administration in the State
    did not realise the ·implications of their actions which resulted from a clash
    of egos and percolated to the lower levels ofa«!ministration. [521-C]

          1.3. It is incumbent for each occupant of every high otlice to be
    constantly aware that the power invested in the high otlice he holds is
H   meant to be exercised in public interest and only for public good, and that
                 STATE v. P.C. MISHRA [.l.S. VERMA. J.]                517

It Is not meant to be used for any personal benefit or merely to elevate the A
personal status of the current holder of that office. Constant awaren~ss of
the nature of this power and the purpose for which it is meant would
prevent situations leading to clash of egos and the resultant fall out
detrimental to public interest. (521-D-E]

     2. All the adverse remarks contained in the order of the Tribunal        B
against respondent Nu. 2, the then Chief Secretary, are expunged. (521-G]

      CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9560 of
1995 etc.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.94 of the Central Ad-
                                                                              c
ministrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in 0.A. No. 211 of 1992.

      Kapil Siba~ S.N. Bhuyan, Ranji Thomas, N. Ganpathy for the Ap-
pellant.
                                                                              D
     P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, Vanita Sahni and Kailash Vasdev for
the Respondent.

    Soli J. Sorabjee, R.K. Maheshwari, Vineet Maheshwari, Raju
Ramachandran and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Respondent in C.A. No.
9561!95.                                                                      E

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      J.S. VERMA, J. Leave granted.

      These appeals by special leave are by the Sr.le of Assam and arise      F
out of unusual circumstances involving three senior officers of the Govern·
ment of Assam, namely, the Chief Secretary H.N. Das, Additional Chief
Secretary P.C. Mishra and Commissioner (Home) C.K. Das. Al the hearing
before us Shri Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for the State of Assam sub-
mitted that it was agreed by all concerned that the adverse remarks made G
by the Tribunal in the impugned order against Shri H.N. Das should be
expunged and, therefore, the Stale Government does not press these
appeals on merils even though it does not accept the correctness of the
Tribunal's order. All the other counsel appearing for the different parties
in these appeals supported the submission of Shri Sibal and a common
prayer was made to dispose of these appeals in these terms.                 H
    518                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995j SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         Ordinarily, in view of the common stand taken at the hearing of these
    appeals it may not have been necessary to say anything more. However, in
    view of the distressing facts and circumstances \vhich have given rise to
    these appeals, we consider it necessary to state briefly the relevant facts
    and express our views which we consider expedient with the hope that it
    prevents such _situations in future at any level of the administration, much
B   less at the highest level.

          Shri P.C. Mishra was posted as the Chairman of the Assam Board
    of Revenue at the relevant time. By the orders dated 10/10/1991 and
    8/9/1992 of the Department of Personnel (A) in the Government of Assam,
    the displeasure of the Government was conveyed to Shri P.C. Mishra for
c   his conduct. Shri P.C. Mishra filed 0.A. No. 211 of 1992 for quashing the
    said orders and the 0.A. has been allowed by the impugned order dated
    1/8/1994 quashing the orders dated 10/10/1991 and 8/9/1992 made by the
    Government of Assam. While making this order, the Tribunal has made
    certain adverse remarks against Shri H.N. Das, who was then the Chief
D   Secretary of the State. These appeals by special leave are by the State
    Government against the Tribunal's order.

          As earlier stated, these appeals are not pressed on merits and,
    therefore, the State Government's orders conveying displeasure against
    Shri P.C. Mis_hra having been quashed, no grievance survives to Shri P.C.
E   Mishra. In the process of quashing the Government orders against Shri
    P.C. Mishra, the Tribunal has made certain adverse remarks against Sh.
    H.N. Das which, it is common ground, now should be expunged. On the
    expunging of the adverse remarks against Shri H.N. Das, the Tribunal's
    order in favour of Shri P.C. Mishra would survive without the adverse
    remarks against shri H.N. Das.
F
          The material facts giving rise to this unfortunate situation are a few.
    In November 1990 Shri H.N. Das was the Chief Secretary of the Slate and
    Shri P.C. Mishra was the only officer in the rank of Additional Chief
    Secretary of the State. On 8/11/1990 Shri H.N. Das, Chief Secretary,
G   submitted a note to the Chief Minister, stating that he wished to proceed
    on leave immed:ately, for which he sought approval. The entire note (at
    pages 42-43 of the paperbook) is as follows :

             "CHIEF MINISTER.

H               I wish to proceed on leave immediately. Formal application will
                 STATE 1·. P.C. MISHRA[J.S. VERMA,J.J                   519

        be submitted separately.                                               A
           This may kindly be approved and alternative arrangement or-
        dered.

                                                              Sd/-H.N. Das
                                                             8/11/1990 c.s.    B

           Additional Chief Secretary will be incharge of Chief Secretary
        until further orders.

                                                         Sd/-P.K Mohanta
                                                                 8/11/1990     c
                        COMMR. PERSONNEL

                                                              Sd/-H.N. Das
                                                                  9/11/1990
                                                                               D
           C.S. has not specified the nature of leave or duration. It would
        be difficult to issue any orders on the basis of the above. Please
        explain this to C.S. in person.

                                                           Sd/-S.K. Tewari.    E
                                                                  9/11/1990

        Con1n1issioner Personnel

            I wish to apply for Casual Ieave for two days on 9/11/1990 and
        10/11/1990 and necessary orders may please be issued. C.M. has
                                                                               F
        already agreed.

                                                             Sd/-H.N. Das"
                                                                 9/11/1990

Thus it was clarified by Shri H.N. Das that his request was only for two       G
days casual leave on 9/11/1990 and 10/11/1990.

      The Chief Minister on the same day made an order directing the
Additional Chief Secretary to be in charge of the officer of Chief Secretary
until further orders. On 10/11/1990 the Chief Minister made an order
addressed to shri P.C. Mishra directing him lo take over charge as Chief       H
    520                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Secretary until further orders and to issue notifications promoting Shri P.C.
    Sharma, Shri S. Manoharan, Shri C.K. Das and Shri A.C. Changakati all
    l.A.S. Officers, lo the super-time scales, for which orders in the relevant
    tile had already been sent to the Personnel Department. Government
    _Notific1tion <latc<l 11/11/1990 was issued posting Shri P.C. Mishra as Chief
    Secretary and he claimed to have taken charge of the office of Chief
B
    Secretary at 3 p.m. on 12/11/1990. On 12/11/1990, Smt. Sablok, Joint
    Secretary, Department of personnel, made a complaint to the Chief
    Secretary Shri H.N. Das against Shri P.C. Mishra. On the same day Shri
    H.N. Das as Chief Secretary sent to Shri P.C. Mishra the complaint of Smt.
    Sablok to clarify the position addressing Shri P.C. Mishra as Additional
c   Chief Secretary. However, Shri P.C. Mishra did not make any comment or
    give clarification to Shri H.N. Das treating himself to be the Chief Secretary
    on that day. An order dated 28/11/1990 was then issued by the State
    Government notifying the appointment of Shri H.N. Das as Chief
    Secretary.
D         On 10/10/1991 the State Government issued an order conveying its
    displeasure to shri P.C. Mishra for his indecorous and uncalled for be-
    haviour with the junior lady officer. Shri P.C. Mishra made his protest
    against the same. However, the State Government by its order dated
    8/9/1992 confirmed its earlier order dated 10/10/1991 conveying the State
E   Government's displeasure at the conduct of Shri P.C. Mishra.

           It is this unseemly incident which led to the controversy about the
     exact status of Shri P.C. Mishra on 12/11/1990 because of his claim to have
     assumed charge of the office of Chief Secretary on that day and it cul-
F    rninatcd in the state Government's order conveying its displeasure at the
     behaviour of Shri P.C. Mishra. The O.A. was then filed in the Tribunal by
     Shri P.C. Mishra to quash the State Government's orders dated 10/10/1991
     and 8/9/1992.

           It is unnecessary, in view of the stand now taken by the State
G    Government in its appeals before us to adjudicate on the exact status of
     Shri P.C. Mishra on 12/11/1990 and to pronounce on his claim that he was
     the Chief Secretary on 12/11/1990. However, it does appear to us that the
     mode of functioning of the State Government which led to rival claims by
     Shri P.C. Mishra and Shri H.N. Das of holding the oflicer of Chief
H    Secretary on 12/11/1990, leaves much to be desired. It does appear that the
                  STATE v. P.C. MISHRA 11.S. VERMA, J.]                    521

situ at ion resulted from certain an1biguous orders n1ade by the State A
Government on the request of Shri H.N. Das on 8/11/1990 to proceed on
leave in spite his c:larilication on 9/1]/1990 of going only on l\Vo <lays casual
leave. At any rati.: some confu~ion having arisi::n soon thereafter on
12/11/1990 on the stand taken by Smt. Sablok, Joint Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Shri H.N. Das having purported to exercise the authority
                                                                                  B
of Chief Secretary on the same day, it was essential for the State Govern-
ment t<i have clarified the position immediately to avoid any escalation of
that conflict which in turn jeopardised proper functioning of the State
Administration. Unfortunately, this was not done. Even later the adverse
effect of this omission and its contribution to escalation of the controversy,
was not realised when the matter proceeded further. It is even more               c
unfortunate that some of the senior most officers of the Indian Administra-
tive Service at the helm of administration in the State, did not realise the
implications of their actions which resulted from a clash of egos and
percolated to the lower levels of administration.
                                                                                  D
       It is incumbent for each occupant of every high office to be constantly
aware that the power invested in the high office he holds is meant to be
exercised in public interest and only for public good, and that it is not
meant to be used for any personal benefit or merely to elevate the personal
status of the current holder of that office. Constant awareness of the nature
of this power and the purpose for which it is meant would prevent situa-          E
lions leading to clash of egos and the resultant fall out detrimental to public
interest. It appears that this lack of perception in all concerned coupled
with the failure of the State Government to issue clear orders, precipitated
the situation into the unseen1ly controversy in the present case which n1ust
have adversely affected the State Administration. We do hope this incident        F
serves as a warning for the future. We are constrained to make these
observations since they are necessary in the context and there is increase
in the frequency of such occurrences every-where.

       For the aforesaid reasons,we expunge all the adverse remarks
contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal against Shri H.N. Das,            G
the then Chief Secretary. The Tribunal's order would now remain with this
modification. The appeals are disposed of accordingly, in these terms.

R.P.                                                    Appeals disposed of.