MEHAR CHAND MEHTA Vs. CITY BOARD SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as the Education Superintendent of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur, in a permanent capacity on 29th April, 1956. According to his allegations he has been working very satisfactorily and every one who had occasion to see his work was pleased with it. The present President of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as the President) took charge of his office about a year back. The petitioner's case is that there is strong party feeling in the Municipal Board. One party is of Sri Bishan Chand Seth, an ex-President, and the other is of the present President. It is alleged by the petitioner that since he was appointed by 'Sri Bishan Chand Seth the present President is prejudiced against him and wants to harm him. It is also alleged that the Executive Officer of the Board was suspended by Sri Bishan Chand Seth during his term of office but after Sri Bishan Chand Seth resigned from the office of President of the Board the Executive Officer was reinstated. It is also alleged that the Executive Officer is ill disposed towards the petitioner. On 1st July, 1958 the present President ordered the suspension of the petitioner under Section 69-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. That order was communicated to the petitioner on 2nd July, 1958 by the Chairman, Education Committee. The present writ petition is directed against that order of suspension. The prayer in the petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 1st July, 1958 conveyed to him by the order of the Chairman, Education Committee, dated 2nd July, 1958. There is also the usual prayer for the issue of such other writ, order or direction as the petitioner may be found entitled to under the law.

(2.) The grounds on which the present petition has been pressed before me are three. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a person can be suspended only after charges have been framed against him and inasmuch as no charges had been framed against the petitioner on 1-7-1958 the order of suspension is illegal and without jurisdiction. The second submission is that the President has no power to suspend the petitioner because his case will be governed not by the provisions of Section 69-A but by the provisions of Section 73 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and it is only the Chairman of the Education Committee who is entitled to take disciplinary action including suspension against the petitioner. Lastly it is submitted that the order of suspension is mala fide and actuated by private grudge and prejudice and is illegal.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which is sworn by Sri H. J. Lambert, Octroi Superintendent and officiating Executive Officer of the Board. It is not necessary to narrate all the allegations made in the counter affidavit and I shall mention only those of the allegations which are material for the decision of the case. According to the counter affidavit the Board did not appoint the petitioner permanently but only in a temporary capacity. It is further stated that there are definite charges against the petitioner and a charge sheet has been drawn up against him on 15th July, 1958. It is further alleged that it was sent to the petitioner by registered post at his permanent address but was not delivered to him.