JAGIR SINGH Vs. AMRITSAR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has a degree of Bachelor in Electrical Engineering was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission and appointed an Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, with effect from 15.9.1969 and was subsequently confirmed on that post with effect from the said date. It has been averred that the service of the petitioner was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, was re-constituted as a Municipal Corporation with effect from Dec. 31, 1976. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 1.12.1977, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar served the petitioner with a charge-sheet pertaining to nine charges and appointed the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation as an inquiry officer to conduct a regular inquiry into these charges. The petitioner denied all the charges and submitted his defence. The inquiry officer submitted his report finding some of the charges as proved. Vide proceedings dated 2.7.1980 Annexure P.6 to the petition, a proposal was put before the Corporation recommending that the petitioner be demoted to the lower post of Junior Engineer. The resolution was adopted and the formal order annexure P-7 dated July 9, 1980 was made stating that it had been decided to demote the petitioner to the next lower posts of Junior Engineer. The petitioner has impugned Annexure P-6 and P.7 by way of present writ petition.

(2.) A three-fold argument has been made by Shri J.S. Wasu, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He has argued that as per Rule 11 read with Appendix 'C' of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') the punishment of demotion could have been made only by the Government, and as such, the order Annexure P-7 made by the Commissioner of the Corporation could not be sustained. It has also been urged that as the petitioner had been appointed directly as Assistant Engineer, he has not liable to be demoted to the lower post and for this purpose has cited Babaji Charan Rout Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1981(3) S.L.R. 189 . The final argument of Mr. Wasu is that the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents could not be taken into account as they had not been filed by duly authorised persons.

(3.) In reply to the arguments and averments of the petitioner, the stand of the respondent is that the services of the petitioner had not been provincialised and as such the Rules were not applicable to his case. Reliance has been placed on Annexures R.7, R.13 and R.14 in support of this contention.