SATNAM SINGH Vs. ZILA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Secretary, District Board, Ferozepur, in 1961, and was appointed as Secretary by that Board on March 21, 1381, with the approval of the Punjab Government. He was confirmed by resolution No. 11 dated February 2, 1963, passed by the District Board with effect from the date of his appointment. By a resolution of the District Board passed at its special emergent meeting held on November 7, 1964, the Appellant was suspended pending enquiry into charges which were to be communicated to him. Subsequently, in a meeting of the District Board held on November 26, 1964, a resolution was passed for the discharge of the Appellant from. service by giving him one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice under Rule 1(1) in part V -A of the District Board Rules, 1926, and condition No. 4 of the terms of his appointment. Another resolution was passed in the same meeting not to proceed with the enquiry into the various charges against the Appellant in view of the decision to discharge him from service. The order of discharge was served on the Appellant on February 10, 1965, when he received it through registered post. The Appellant then submitted a representation to the Punjab Government on April 7, 1965, to which he received a reply dated May 5, 1965, informing that he should approach the Commissioner of the Division. On June 7, 1965, the Appellant again approached the Punjab Government for its interference under Section 50 of the District Boards Act, 1883, as a special casein view of the circumstances leading to his suspension and subsequent discharge from service but without success. Having thus received no redress from the Punjab Government, the Appellant filed a suit on December 14, 1967, praying for a declaration to the effect that the order terminating his services, vide District Board Resolution No. 2 dated November 26, 1964, being in reality one of dismissal/removal from service was illegal, void, ultra vires, arbitrary, unjust, mala fide and against the provisions of the Constitution of India and the rules governing the service of the Appellant and contrary to the canons of justice and equity and that the Appellant still continued to be in the service of the District Board, Ferozepur (now Zila Parihad, Ferozepur), a Secretary, entitled to all the emoluments and benefits admissible to him. This suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on January 9, 1969. Against that decree, the Zila Parishad, Ferozepur, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ferozepur, which was dismissed on December 22, 1969, by the III Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Against that decree, R.S.A. 186 of 1970, was filed in this Court which was accepted by the learned Single Judge on September 18, 1970, and the suit of the Appellant was dismissed. After obtaining the leave of the learned Single Judge, the Appellant filed L.P.A. 78 of 1971 which was heard by my Lord the Chief Justice and myself on September 15, 1972, and in view of certain judgments, which were brought to our notice, we decided to refer the following question of law to a Full Bench for decision:

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the parties suggested that the question of law should be reframed so as to include Rule 1 in part V - -A of the District Board Rules, 1926, along with the conditions of the Appellant's appointment, as the impugned order was passed under both the provisions. We have, accordingly, reframed the question of law as under:

(3.) SECTION 27 of the District Boards Act, 1883 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provided for the employment of officers and servants by the District Board as may be necessary and proper for the efficient execution of its duties and of the duties of the local boards acting under it. The appointment of a Secretary had, however, to be made by the Board with the approval of the State Government, if it decided to appoint a Secretary. There was no section in the Act making it obligatory or mandatory for the District Board to appoint a Secretary like Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, wherein a mandatory provision for the appointment of a Secretary has been made in the following words: