KRISHNA GANAPATHI RAYKAR Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT SHIRALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, North Kanara, in C.A. No.221 of 1965, confirming the decree passed by the Munsiff, Bhatkal, in Civil Suit No. 16 of 1958. The plaintiff was appointed as a Secretary of the respondent which is the Village Panchayat at Shirali. On the 31st of October 1955, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution terminating the services of the plaintiff. The Panchayat sought the sanction of the Collector to terminate the services of the plaintiff as per the resolution passed on 31-10-1955. The sanction of the Collector was necessary in view of Rule 24 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1948, framed under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933. The Collector declined to grant the sanction prayed for. He observed in his order that the panchayat had not acted in accordance with rules and suggested that the new panchayat that was to be elected should take action in accordance with law. Immediately thereafter the panchayat passed a resolution on 7-1-1956 resolving to reinstate the plaintiff, subject to the plaintiff fulfilling certain conditions. That resolution, however, was not given effect to and the plaintiff was not reinstated in service. The panchayat passed another resolution on 12-1-1956 not to give effect to its own earlier resolution of 7-1-1956 to reinstate the plaintiff.

(2.) Therefater the newly constituted panchayat passed a resolution on 26-1-1956 terminating the services of the plaintiff. The resolution passed by the panchayat was approved by the Collector by his order dated 22-8-56. The resolution of the panchayat was given effect to and the plaintiff was removed from service on 10-9-1956. The present suit has been brought by the plaintiff on 16-4-1958 for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff's services as well as his suspension are illegal, void and inoperative and for arrears of pay and allowances from 12-4-1955 to 31-12-1955 amounting to Rs.648-75 and from 1-1-1956 to 31-12-1957 amounting to Rs.1,824. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the action taken by the panchayat to terminate the services of the plaintiff is in clear violation of Rules 24 and 25 of the Rules referred to above. His further complaint is that the material resolutions have been passed in contravention of the rules and the bye-laws. The panchayat resisted the suit on various grounds. The panchayat contended that the termination of the plaintiff's services is in accordance with the rules and the prescribed procedure. The panchayat further took the stand that the suit is barred by limitation, in view of the fact that the suit was not brought within six months of the accrual of the cause of action as required by S.111 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933.

(3.) The learned Munsiff after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the meeting of the panchayat held on 31-10-1955 was irregular. He also came to the conclusion that the order suspending the plaintiff is illegal. The learned Munsiff recorded a finding to the effect that the subsequent resolution of the panchayat dismissing the plaintiff from service is illegal and void. The learned Munsiff, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation under S.111 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933.