GURBACHAN SINGH BALWA Vs. LACHMAN SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by Shri Gurbachan Singh Bajwa, an Advocate of Qadian, district Gurdaspur, who was appointed as one man Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide Punjab Government notification No. 5419-1-HT-65/22885 dated the 2nd September 1965 and later removed the office by virtue of the gazette notification dated August 8, 1968, true copy whereof is annexure 'g' to the writ petition. The removal is the consequence of abolition of the Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as amended by Act 100 of 1956. The petitioner was allowed one months pay in lieu of notice of period of one month. He has challenged the validity of the latter notification on various grounds including that of mala fides of the then Chief Minister , late Shri Lachman Singh Gill, and the Transport Minister, Shri Parkash Singh Majithia, respondents 1 and 3. It is further pleaded by him that the proposal for abolition of the post was initiated not only because of the mala fides of the respondents 1 and 3 but also that of the State Transport Controller whose abortive attempts to interfere with the discharge of the judicial functions of the petitioner had annoyed him. In order to appreciate the connections raised by the petitioner it is necessary to briefly state a few facts as alleged by him.

(2.) THE petitioner on being appointed as the Tribunal took charge of his office on September 9, 1965, with headquarters at Chandigarh. Terms and conditions of his appointment were however, not communicated to him at the time of his appointment. He claims to have written a demiofficial letter to the then Minister for Transport, Mr. Gurdial Singh Dhillon, by which he requested that his tenure of service be fixed at five years and salary at Rs. 1500/-per mensem. A reply on behalf of the State has been filed by Shri Ram Gopal, I. A. S. Deputy Secretary Home, who is not in a position to admit or deny his assertion as it is stated that there is nothing on the office record to that effect. In the absence of a specific denial, I have to accept the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner within two months of his appointment started writing letters to the Government suggesting to it that the Tribunal should be made independent of the State Transport Controller and the presiding Officer of the Tribunal should be the head of his own department. It was pointed out that keeping the Tribunal under the administrative control of the State Transport Controller would cause great inconvenience and create awkward position for the Tribunal inasmuch as the Punjab Roadways of which the State Controller was the executive head, was very often a party in claim cases and it was in these circumstances undesirable to let a party to a case before a judicial officer have administrative control over the latter. Simultaneously, the petitioner went on pressing for settling the terms and conditions of his service and when no decision was taken by the Government and elections to the State Legislative Assembly were within sight, he tendered his resignation on November 18, 1966. It may be stated that the petitioner was in public life earlier and probably wanted to contest elections if he was not to be retained in service for five years at a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/-as desired by him. Since the resignation was not accepted, the petitioner sent a reminder to that effect on December 16, 1966, the receipt whereof is not denied by the State and a copy of the same is filed as Annexure 'd' with the writ petition. The petitioner stated in the reminder that one month after the submission of resignation having expired, he would treat the same having been accepted with effect from December 18, 1966. It appears that there was then a meeting between the Chief Minister, Shri Gurmukh Singh Musafir and the petitioner as a result whereof the latter withdrew the resignation. He informed the Secretary to Government, Punjab, by letter dated February 15, 1967 that he was withdrawing the resignation as desired by the Chief Minister. A copy of this letter was forwarded to the State Transport Controller for information. On February 13, 1967 that is two days before he withdrew his resignation and by which time meeting between the Chief Minister and the petitioner had taken place an order Annexure 'f' was issued by the Governor of Punjab fixing the terms of the appointment and the tenure of the office of the Tribunal. The salary was fixed at Rs. 1500/- per mensem as was desired by the petitioner and so the period of his service was fixed at five years. The petitioner continued working as the Claims Tribunal drawing the salary when during the regime of another Ministry headed by respondent 1, come the impugned order of August 8, 1968, abolishing one man Tribunal and terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The State Transport Controller was directed to take steps for the adjustment of the staff of the office of the Tribunal as their posts also stood abolished. Being aggrieved by the order of this abolition of the post and the termination of his services, the petitioner has come to this Court in a writ petition. The State of Punjab, was having one man Claims Tribunal earlier too and the executive control throughout rested with the State Transport Controller. The T. A. bills of the petitioner and his predecessors had to be sanctioned by the Transport Controller and even the tour programme was to be approved by him. It is alleged that in 1966, an accident took place involving a bus of the Punjab Roadways and the same fell into a khud resulting in injuries to many others. The petitioner awarded compensation amounting to one and a half lakhs rupees to the claimants. According to the petitioner, the State Transport Controller hinted to him that he was a member of the Transport Department and should keep its interest in view while awarding compensations awarded against the Government must be not heavy. The petitioner did not countenance this interference and told the Controller that he (the petitioner) would decide each case on its own facts. This annoyed the State Transport's Controller and he at one time refused to countersign the petitioner's T. A. bills for several months so much so the petitioner had to seek the intervention of Shri S. K. Chibber, the then Secretary Transport, and it was on his speaking on telephone to the State Transport Controller that the bills were passed.

(3.) A grievance of the Transport Department against the petitioner is stated to be that he would take steps towards the execution of the awards without affording much time to the Department to get stay orders by preferring appeals. The practice of the petitioner was normally to allow two months time for payment of the amount of compensation from the date of the award but the transport Department sent written instructions to him that in all cases of the Punjab Roadways, three months time be allowed and that the instructions should take effect retrospectively. The petitioner alleges that in many cases against the Punjab Roadways he directed the Collector to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue which was not liked by the officials of the Transport Department and it was being stated openly that the fund maintained by the Department under Section 94 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was going to be exhausted. The petitioner refers to another case decided by him against the State of Punjab wherein he awarded Rs. 80, 000/-as compensation against the Transport Department on September 13, 1967, in Claim Application No. 91 an appeal against which was dismissed by the High Court in limine. There was another case of J. P. S. Kapur v. Punjab State in which the petitioner allowed a compensation of Rs. 3, 96,000/- against the State Government. The case of the petitioner is that all these honest judicial decisions of his infuriated the State Transport Controller and the officials of the Transport Department who started saying that either the State Transport Undertaking be wound up or the services of the petitioner terminated immediately. It is not denied that the T. A. bills of the petitioner were being held up in the office of the State Transport Controller for months together though it is said that they were under close scrutiny in the ordinary office routine.