A bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Shrikant Poudel overturned the government's decision to transfer Shakya from the NEA to the Water and Energy Commission as an energy expert.
The Supreme Court has ruled to quash the decision to transfer former Executive Director of the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) Hitendra Dev Shakya. A bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Shrikant Poudel quashed the government's decision to transfer Shakya from the NEA to the position of energy expert at the Water and Energy Commission.
The Supreme Court has ordered that Shakya be allowed to continue working/acting as the Executive Director in his previous capacity.
The cabinet meeting held after Kulman Ghising took oath as the Energy Minister had removed Shakya from the Nepal Electricity Authority and transferred him to a special post in the Secretariat of the Water and Energy Commission.
Shakya had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on Kartik 21, demanding that his post should remain in the authority. The government has also stated that the proposal made by the departmental minister to transfer Hitendra appears to be biased and vindictive. The order also states that the decision and action taken based on such a proposal cannot be considered as a fair, just and reasonable decision. The order also states that such decisions and actions, which appear arbitrary from the face of the case, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and justice.
'When the Executive Director of Nepal Electricity Authority was removed from the post, he could be removed according to the procedure and basis mentioned in the Nepal Electricity Authority, Executive Director or General Manager's Service Conditions and Facilities Regulations, 2061 or the performance agreement entered into with him, but since he was removed from the post without following any such procedure, the proposal of the opposing departmental minister to remove him from the post appeared to be biased and vindictive. The decision and action taken based on such a proposal could not be considered as a fair, just and reasonable decision. Such decisions and actions, which appeared arbitrary from the face of the case, could not be sustained in the eyes of law and justice,' the order said.
