KARIAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Bill Collector in the City Municipality, Raichur. In order to hold a, disciplinary enquiry into certain alleged acts of misconduct, certain charges were framed on 6-9-1968 and the petitioner was asked tq submit his explanation. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. The Comnussioner heard the petitioner on 6-11-1968. The matter was there after put before the standing committee of the Municipality for its consideration. The standing committee by its resolution dt. 8-11-68 decided to terminate the, services of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was served with an order dt. 16-11-1968 by the Commissioner terminating his services with immediate effect. The petitioner has questioned the said order of termination in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Sri Murlidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the resolution of the standing committee dt.8-11-1968 was void and ineffective in view of the fact that the term of the standing committee had expired on 13-6-1968 and it had not 'been reconstituted by the Municipal Council when it passed the resolution dated 8-11-1968 on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner. It is not disputed that the standing committee was elected by the Municipal Council on 14-6-1967 under S.63 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. S.63(1) states that the Members so elected can hqld office for a period of one year. It is, therefore, clear that the term of standing committee came tq an end on 13-6-1968. It is, not also disputed that the Municipal Council had not re-elected the members of the standing committee as the members of the succeeding standing committee until the resolution was passed by them, on 8-11-1968. No provision in the Act or the Rules is brought to, my notice stating that the members of the standing committee, elected under S.63(1) of'the Act, would continue to function as such until their successors are elected, notwithstanding the fact that Under the, sa,id sub-section, the period of a standing committee is prescribed as one year. S.80 of the. Act on which Sri Gangadharappa relied is also of no assistance. The provisions of S.80 are not applicable to a case of this type.

(3.) In the circumstances, it has to be held that the standing committee which passed the resolution had no authority to pass it on 8-11-1968. This Cqurt has taken the same view in Gulam Mohamed v. City Municipal Council, Raichur (1). Following the said decision, I set aside the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner which is based on the resolution dt.8-11-1968 passed by the'standing committee.