SITA RAM GOEL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition directed against order of removal of petitioner who was Assistant Tax Superintendent the question is if on facts the District Magistrate/Administrator of Municipal Board Hapur was justified in differing from the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Further could the District Magistrate exercise this power after enforcement of Centralised Service Rules.

(2.) IN 1980 a complaint was made by one Jugul Kishore that after death of his father Krishna Murari Lal the name of Shyam Sunder Lal who was father of one Ashok Kumar Mittal a clerk in Municipal Board was substituted over house no. 105 Mohalla Maheshwariganj, Hapur with collusion of petitioner. Sri Jugul Kishore filed a criminal complaint as well. On 24th January, 1981 the petitioner was suspended. His services were terminated in September, 1981. The order was, however, set aside in appeal in August 1982, and direction was issued to proceed afresh in accordance with rules. Fresh proceedings were started in December, 1982. The Prabhari Adhikari exonerated the petitioner. It was held that on mere suspicion no action could be taken against him. Further criminal case was already pending. He, therefore, reinstated petitioner in June, 1983 and the order was given effect to. IN May, 1986, just one month before petitioner's superannuation the District Magistrate passed the impugned order. It was held that Prabhari Adhikari was not empowered to pass the order of reinstatement. On merits it was held that charges against petitioner were serious. Retention of such employee was not in public interest.

(3.) A bare perusal of rule indicates that it does not empower the State Government to delegate its power in favour of any authority. It empowers relaxation likely to cause hardship. It cannot normally apply in case of rule 37. In absence of any averments or any material brought on record that opposite parties made any move to the State Government for relaxation from requirement and State Government has passed order relaxing provisions of rule 37 in respect of petitioner, the impugned order cannot be maintained.