KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as an accountant in the Vanchi Poor Home at Alleppey, which was affiliated to the Vanchi Poor Fund, Trivandrum, and was managed by a Committee. Finding it difficult to carry on the management, the Committee requested the Municipal Council at Alleppey, to take over the management of the Poor Home. At the request of the Municipal Council, the Government of Kerala transferred the Poor Home to the Alleppey Municipal Council "on the terms and conditions proposed by Executive Committee of the Vanchi Poor Fund" by proceedings Ext. P. 1 dated the 10th I February, 1958. Thereafter, a Committee consisting of eleven Municipal Councillors and six others was constituted for managing the Poor Home, and this Committee has been impleaded in this petition as the second respondent. The first respondent, who is the Municipal Commissioner, Alleppey, is the Secretary of that Committee. For alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner between the 1st January, 1957, and the 31st August, 1957, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry, by the first respondent by Ext. P. 2 on the 18th October, 1958. Some correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the first respondent, and by Ext. P. 7 dated the 2nd January, 1959, the first respondent ordered the suspension of the petitioner from service pending enquiry until further orders. It is said, that no enquiry has been commenced yet, and the petitioner is still under suspension. The first respondent had also called upon the petitioner by Ext. P. 4 dated the 15th December, 1958, to reimburse the amount said to have been misappropriated by him. This petition is to quash Exts. P. 2, P. 4 and P. 7.

(2.) One of the grounds to quash them was, that the first respondent had no authority, by himself, to place the petitioner under suspension from service. The power of the first respondent so to order suspension, was traced by his learned counsel to S.72 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 which may be referred to hereafter as the Act, and also to Rule 26 framed under the Act. The material part of S.72 is that "..... the executive authority may ........ suspend, remove or dismiss any Municipal officer or servant in its service ........ for any breach of departmental rules or discipline, or for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of duty or other misconduct."

(3.) Though the management of a Poor Home is not specifically mentioned as one of the objects or purposes of the Act, S.62 enables the Government, with the consent of the Municipal Council "to transfer to the Council, the management of any institution .............. not provided for by this Act and it shall thereupon be lawful for the Council to undertake such management or execution." Apparently, this was the provision under which the Government transferred the institution -- the Poor Home -- to the Municipal Council and the latter accepted that responsibility. The proviso to S.62 is important and reads "provided that in every such case, the funds required for such management or execution shall be placed at the disposal of the Council by Our Government". The learned counsel for the first respondent contended, that once these funds of the institution are transferred to the Municipal Council, they form part of the Municipal Fund. He then relied on S.59(1) of the Act which provides, "that management, control and administration of every public institution maintained exclusively, out of the Municipal Fund shall vest in the Municipal Council". The true meaning of S.59(1) of the Act will be clear, only if S.59(2) also is understood. S.59(2) reads :