MOTILAL Vs. JANAPADA SABHA, RAJNANDGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing a resolution dated 22nd June 1963 of the Administrative Committee of the Janapada Sabha, Rajnandgaon, removing him from service as also the decision of the Additional Collector, Durg, upholding in appeal the decision of the Administrative Committee.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Headmaster, Badgaon school, run and managed by the Janapada Sabha. In 1963 an enquiry was held by Shri Baldau Ram Mahobe, Janapada Sabha School Inspector, against the petitioner on charges of absence from duty during certain periods, failure to exercise proper supervision over the working of the assistant teacher, failure to maintain proper relations with the villagers and the members of the school committee, and unsatisfactory examination results. At the end of the enquiry, the Inspector reported that all the charges had been established against the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was taken up for consideration by the Administrative Committee of the Janapada Sabha at a meeting held on 2nd June 1963. At this meeting 11 members of the Janapada Sabha including the Chairman were present. All the members accepted the report of the Inspector and thought that some action should be taken against the petitioner. But they were all divided as to the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. Four of the members were of the opinion that the applicant should be removed from service. One suggested that he should be warned, his increment for one year should be stopped and he should be transferred. Another member proposed that the applicant should be transferred. Four members thought that the penalty of reversion should be imposed on the applicant. The Chairman took the view that as four members were in favour of removal of the petitioner from service and four others were for his reversion, there was an equality of votes on the question of the punishment to be inflicted on the applicant and that he was, therefore, entitled to exercise his casting vote. Accordingly the Chairman gave his casting vote for the removal of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that there was no majority decision at all of the Administrative Committee to remove him from service; that whereas only four members were of the view that he should be removed from service, all others proposed different punishment; that there was not even an equality of votes on the question whether the punishment of removal should be awarded to him; and that, therefore, the Chairman was not entitled to exercise his casting vote. The applicant's further objection is that the enquiry which the Inspector held was behind his back and was not in conformity with the Rules framed under section 182 (2) (xv) of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, and, that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that the application must be granted. Section 45 (1) of the Act, so far as it is material here, is as follows :