MUNICIPAL BOARD KANNAUJ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave against the decision of the appellate Bench of the Allahabad High Court involves the question of the legality and validity of an order dated 12th May, 1965 passed by the State Government purporting to act under Section 34 (1-B) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") . The impugned order is as follows:-

(2.) The substance of the allegations in the petition by the Municipal Board was that, on account of certain disputes between the Board and the sweeper-employees of the Board, there was a sudden strike by the latter on 7th April, 1964. As many as 74 sweepers struck work without notice. By reason of the strike, insanitary conditions developed in the town endangering public health. The Board had, therefore, to act quickly as in an emergency to recruit sweepers to do the job; but it was difficult to recruit new men unless continuous employment was given to them and, hence, on 8th April, 1964, the Board arranged to have it announced by beat of drum in the town that, unless the striking employees resumed duties by the evening of 9th April 1964, they were liable to be dismissed. The strikers did not join duties by the evening of 9th April,1964 and, therefore, the Executive Officer of the Board dismissed the 74 strikers who were made parties to the petition. It was admitted that the procedure laid down by Rule 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Boards Servants (Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules") was not adopted before taking disciplinary action by way of dismissal; but the Board justified its action by reference to the proviso to Rule 5 (1) which stated that the provisions of Rule 5 (1) shall not apply where the person concerned had absconded and where, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it was impracticable to communicate with him. After the dismissal of the 74 employees on 9th April, 1964 some of the employees appealed against the order of dismissal and most of them were reinstated. The others did not appeal and, therefore, the order of dismissal stood in their case. New recruits were appointed in their place. Later, i.e, more than a year after the order of dismissal, the State Government, purporting to act under Section 34 (1-B) of the Act, passed the above order prohibiting the execution or further execution of the order of dismissal passed by the Executive Officer. It was contended that no such order under Section 34 (1-B) of the Act could be validly made by the State Government.

(3.) The State Government, which was respondent No. 1 to the petition, supported its order and contended that the order had been passed in the public interest as, in its opinion, the order of the Executive Officer was illegal and arbitrary and had the effect of throwing a large body of employees out of employment making them suffer privation and misery on account of the continuing operation of the order which was illegally passed. The employee-respondents, on the other hand, denied the more substantial allegations in the petition. They alleged that, as a matter of fact, the employees had not gone on strike and, therefore, there was no question of their abstaining from doing their duties either on the 7th, 8th or the 9th of April, 1964. There was no question also of any insanitary conditions developing in the town and there was no good reason at all for passing an order of dismissal of all the employees in a body. They further alleged that the order had been passed out of sheer spite in order to teach them a lesson.