RAMAN NARANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raman Narang petitioner was appointed as Secretary to the Municipal Committee, Sangat, District Bhatinda on October 26, 1966. He was confirmed in this post by the Municipal Committee on April 24, 1967. Certain incidents took place in the month of November, 1970 which culminated in the passing of resolution No. 135 by the Municipal Committee in its meeting held on September 29, 1970 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the service. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. Later on he was dismissed vide resolution No. 158 dated 6.2.1971. Vide resolution dated March 30, 1971 the Municipal Committee abolished the post of Secretary. The Deputy Commissioner approved the budget of the Municipal Committee on March 31, 1971 wherein no provision was made for the post of Secretary to the Municipal Committee. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal of the petitioner on July 1, 1975 and set aside the order of petitioner's dismissal. A copy of that is appended as Annexure P1 to the writ petition. Even thereafter despite repeated representations to the Municipal Committee respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not reinstated and given the consequential reliefs to which he was entitled under law. Dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Broadly the facts are admitted by Municipal Committee, respondent No. 2. The orders of dismissal are sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner had absented himself from his post and had also embezzled the municipal funds and had gone away taking with him the keys of the Municipal Committee. It is averred that the order Annexure P-1 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not valid because the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that the post of Secretary to the Municipal Committee had been abolished with the concurrence of the State Government.

(3.) Elaborate provisions have been made in the Punjab Municipal General Rules framed under Section 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act for dealing with the delinquent municipal employees. Rule 2 of Part IV of the Rules provides that no officer or servant of the Municipal Committee can be dismissed except after an enquiry is held in accordance with Rule 3 whereunder a detailed enquiry is envisaged by this rule. The employer as well as the employee are permitted to lead their evidence on the charges and then findings have to be given on each charge. In the present case the petitioner was admittedly a confirmed employee of respondent No. 2. No enquiry was held against him and he was not dismissed by following the procedure laid down in Rule 3. The Deputy Commissioner rightly quashed the order of the dismissal of the petitioner because they were not sustainable under law. The Municipal Committee did not challenge the order Annexure P.I before any higher authority and it had become final between the parties. This order was passed by the competent authority in exercise of statutory powers. The Municipal Authority is bound to implement this order. It cannot avoid it on the facile ground of its being passed in a time barred appeal. Even the order passed by a competent authority in a time barred appeal remains a valid order till it is set aside by a superior authority.