RAJINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred against the order of the State Government as contained in Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary notification No. 11765 ICII 69/ dated 8th September, 1969, whereby the Governor of the Punjab directed that the Petitioner be removed from the office of Vice -President and from the membership of Municipal Committee, Tankanwali. for his alleged abuse of power as Vice -President and flagrant abuse of his position as a member of the said Committee. A copy of the notification is appended as Annexure 'C' with the writ petition. The impugned order purports to have been passed under Sections 22 and 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, (hereinafter called the Act). The Municipal Committee Respondent will hereinafter be described as the Committee.

(2.) A meeting of the Committee was held on 28th September, 1968, and the same was presided over by one Shri Balak Nath Vaid. It is alleged that in the course of some discussion over an item on the agenda regarding a licence application with the merits of which we are not concerned some heat was generated and an exchange of personal remarks took place between the Petitioner and a lady member Smt. Suraksha Sood. The Petitioner is said to have given shoe -beating to the lady member and this has been held to amount to misconduct and (sic) abuse of position within the meaning of Sections 22 and I6(I)(e) of the Act. A show -cause notice dated 9th May, 1969 (Annexure 'A'), was issued to the Petitioner by the Secretary to Government, Punjab,, Local Government, and the former was called upon to furnish bis explantion within a period of 21 days from the date of despatch of that letter. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 27th May, 1969, in which he made a grievance that he was not shown the record on which the charges were based nor was he supplied copies of any of the documents by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, despite repeated requests in writing. On merits the charge levelled against the Petitioner was denied. According to the Petitioner, the true facts were that Smt. Suraksha Sood was in favour of granting a licence to one Shri Dharam Paul whereas the Petitioner opposed her. Smt. Suraksha Sood used insulting language, then took off her chapal (shoe) and tried to throw the same on the Petitioner, but she could not do so as other members of the Committee intervened and held har arm. It was emphatically, denied by the Petitioner that he ever gave shoe -beating to Smt. Suraksha Sood and his case was that the boot was on the other leg and that it was Smt. Suraksha Sood who assaulted him with a shoe. It was further stated by the Petitioner that after the exchange of words between them, the meeting continued peacefully and business fixed for that meeting was transacted The Petitioner in his explanation, referred to the joint report of the Public Grievance Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police both of whom had in fact found Smt. Suraksha Sood responsible for the incident and clearly exonerated the Petitioner of the false charge made against him holding that the behaviour of the lady member was more objectionable. The plea of the Petitioner was that the rival group of the Committee which belonged to the opposite political party took Smt. Suraksha Sood to Chandigarh and got a direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner from the higher authorities asking him to hold another enquiry, though the earlier report of the Public Grievance Officer and Deputy Superinten. -dent of Police exonorating him had already been submitted through the Deputy Commissioner. The Petitioner also represented in his explanation that the Deputy Commissioner examined witnesses in his absence and did not afford any opportunity to him to rebut the charges that were being made against him. It is not disputed before me that the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent 4, did make an ex parte enquiry, styled by the Petitioner as second enquiry, and gave a report contrary to what the Public Grievance Officer and the Debuty Superintendent of Police had already said. It is equally conceded that when the first enquiry was made jointly by the Public Grievance Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, both the parties to the dispute, namely, the Petitioner and Smt Suraksha Sood. were associated with the same. The executive file has been shown to me and there is no manner of doubt that the Deputy Commissioner did hold a secret enquiry and examined witnesses, without making the Petitioner aware of the statements made against him in that enquiry or affording him an opportunity to explain, or rebut those statements. It was after receipt of this ex parte report of the Deputy Commissioner that the show -cause notice, Annexue A, was served. The proposal first made was tor removal of the President and his explanation was obtained. The charge against him seems to have been that he kept out of record of proceedings of the meeting the protest lodged by one Shri Munshi Ram, Municipal Commissioner, against misconduct of the Vice -President. When the matter against the President was being processed in the office, the Minister Incharge suggested that action should be taken against the Petitioner as well and that he should not go scot free. It was on this that proceedings against the Petitioner commenced and the show -cause notice issued. The aforesaid report of the Deputy Commissioner formed the basis of the ultimate penal action against the Petitioner. Mr. J.N. Seth, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently contends that the Petitioner never misconducted himself by giving a shoe -beating to the lady member and the whole story had been falsely got up mala fide to oust him and the President from membership of the Committee as both of them belonged to the opposite political parties and their outser would give majority to the rival group, Reliance is placed on the assertions as made in para 13 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that on 25th July, 1969, that is, much before the actual order of removal of the Petitioner from office of the Vice -President and membership of the Committee was passed, Des Raj, Respondent 5 and a member of the Committee, openly declared in a meeting held on that day that according to the information with him the order for removal of the Vice -President had been passed. Des Raj was impleaded as a Respondent but he filed no affidavit denying these averments. In such a situation, there is no choice but to accept the statement of fact as made by the Petitioner on oath.`

(3.) THE other argument of Mr. Seth is that the impugned order is violative of the rules of natural justice in as much as no real opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to establish that he did not give shoebeating to the lady member and that it was really the latter who had assaulted him with her chapal at a meeting of the Committee and in presence of the Municipal Commissioners. It is also submitted that the State Government acting in a quasi -judicial capacity is bound to conform to the well -established norms of natural justice one of which is that there must be some evidence on which the State Government could act and that the action could be taken against a delinquent only after giving him a reasonable opportunity and not merely an illusory one to rebut the charges made against him.