RAM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the principles of natural justice are inflexibly. attracted 'even in the case of a Municipal employee voluntarily opting for absorption in the newly created State level Municipal Services under Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 [despite the binding precedent of the Full Bench in Pal Singh v. State of Punjab C.W. 8497/76 decided on 5 -4 -77 holding to the contrary - -is the spinal question which has necessitated this reference in this set of six connected writ petitions. In essence, the issue is whether the ratio in Pol Singh's case (supra) still holds the field after the later judgments in Mohd. Rashid Ahmad etc. v. The State of U.P. and Anr. : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 592 and Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of U.P. and Anr. : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1237.

(2.) THE relevant factual matrix may be briefly picked from C.W.P. No. 1263 of 1981 Ram Parkash Sharma v. State of Punjab. The Petitioner therein joined service in the Municipal Committee of Tarn Taran, District Amritsar as, an Octroi Moharrir in 1944 and was later promoted and confirmed in the post of Octroi Inspector. In the year 1975, the State Government constituted the Punjab Municipal Service of some categories including posts of the Inspectors of Octroi under Section 38(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), - -vide notification dated December 17, 1975. The State Government also constituted a Screening Committee under Sub -section (6) of Section 38 of the Act for considering the qualifications and service records of the existing municipal employees for their absorption against corresponding posts in the State Level Municipal Service. On the Petitioner's own showing, he himself gave an option in 1975 to become the member of the Punjab Municipal Service. His case was duly considered by the Screening Committee, on March 6, 1981. In view of his unsatisfactory service record, he was found unfit for absorption. Accordingly, - -vide communication, annexure P/1, dated March 26, 1981, he was informed that by virtue of the provisions of Sub -section (6 -A) of Section 38 of the Act, the post on which he was serving was deemed to have been abolished with effect from March 6, 1981. The writ Petitioner assailed the determination of his services and the validity of annexure P/l on a variety of grounds, including a veiled challenge to the very constitutionality of Sub -sections (6) and (6 -A) of Section 38 of the Act, as also on the ground of the alleged infraction of the principles of natural justice insofar as the Petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing for claiming absorption in the superior State level Punjab Municipal Service. In the return filed on behalf of the Respondent -Municipal Committee, the broad factual position is not disputed. It is however, highlighted that the service record of the Petitioner was so poor that he was found unfit for absorption in the Punjab Municipal Service despite a close examination of the same and his qualifications by the Screening Committee. It was pointed out that the writ Petitioner had himself opted to become a member of the Punjab Municipal Service and in view of this, by virtue of Sub -sections (6) and (6 -A), his post stood abolished simultaneously with the decision of the Screening Committee finding him unfit for absorption. The validity of the relevant Sub -section of Section 38 and the rules framed for the purposes of consideration and absorption of municipal employees in the state level service, have been reiterated to be valid. Particular reliance is placed on the second proviso to Section 38(6) of the Act giving the right to the municipal employees of not becoming a member of the new service and therefore to continue to be governed by the same terms and conditions of service, as earlier, in case he so decides. As regards the applicability of the rules of natural justice, firm reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment in Pol Singh's case (supra), holding in categoric terms that in this context, no principle of natural justice is involved at all.

(3.) AT the motion stage, itself, a challenge to the ratio of Pal Singh's case (supra) was sought to be raised on the basis of Mazharul Islam Hashmi's case (supra) as also on Mohd. Rashid Ahmad etc's case (supra). Consequently, the case and the connected writ petitions were directed to be heard by a larger Bench and that is how they are now before us.