BADLU Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions relating to the correct interpretation and true scope of Rule 42 of the, Punjab Chaukidara Rules, 1876 (as amended up to May, 1965) call for decision in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances:

(2.) BADLU Petitioner, a Chowkidar of village Chulkana tehsil Sonepat, district Rohtak, made a complaint against Shri Chand, Respondent No. 4, who was the Daffadar of that village. The Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Sonepat, made enquiries into the complaint and by his order, dated November 6, 1968, (Annexure 'A') held that Shri Chand was not performing his duties properly, but let him off with admonitibn. Shri Chand was allowed to continue in his post though he was warned to be more careful in future. Against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. That appeal was allowed by the order of the Deputy Commisisoner, (who was also the Collector of the district), dated April 28, 1969, (Annexure 'B'). He held that Shri Chand, Respondent could not be retained on the post of Daffadar. He, accordingly, set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer and dismissed Shri Chand from the post of Daffadar. I am given to understand that by a subsequent order the Petitioner was appointed as Daffadar in place of Shri Chand. This is being mentioned in order to make it clear that the Petitioner had some actual interest in this litigation though, even otherwise, he would have been entitled to maintain his petition as the proceedings against Shri Chand had been initiated by him.

(3.) RIGHT of appeal does not exist unless it is conferred by some statute. It is the common case of both sides that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in the matter of interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner is confined to the first part of Rule 42. This means that the Commissioner can revise or alter only such orders of a Deputy Commissioner which relate to the fixing of the number of watchmen, the mode of the remuneration of village watchmen or relate to the levying of the same. No revisional or appellate jurisdiction has been conferred on the Commissioner to interfere with any other kind of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (or his delegate) under the Punjab Chaukidara Rules. It is plain that the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure 'B') neither related to the fixing of the number of village watchmen nor to the mode of the remuneration nor to the matter of levying of the same. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed on that short ground.