CHINT RAM Vs. SMALL TOWN COMMITTEE, SUJANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that the resolutions and orders of the defendant-Committee suspending and dismissing him from its service as Secretary are mala fide, void and inoperative and is a consequential relief for an injunction restraining the Committee from preventing the appellant to act as the Secretary, was dismissed by the trial Sub-Judge and also an appeal by Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur.

(2.) Chint Ram appellant was appointed Secretary, of the Small Town Committee, Sujanpur, respondent, on temporary basis for three months, vide resolution (Exhibit D-1) dated 4th September, 1948. By a second resolution dated 23rd January, 1949, the period was extended for another three months ending on 9th March, 1949. The appellant continued to act as Secretary even after the expiry of this period, though no order for further extension or confirmation was made. On 11th August, 1949, Chint Ram proceeded on one week's leave. He did not re-join and his application for further leave was refused. By resolution dated 3rd September, 1949 (Exhibit D-4), Chint Ram was suspended for a period of one month. The period was extended till the completion of audit by another resolution (Exhibit D-6) dated 30th September, 1949. Chint Ram instituted the present suit on 15th October, 1949 challenging the validity of the two resolutions of his suspension.

(3.) Subsequently, he was dismissed from service with effect from 1st November 1949 by a resolution of the Committee (Exhibit D-8) dated 31st October 1949. Chint Ram then amended the plaint and prayed for a similar declaration with respect to this resolution as well. The three resolutions were alleged to be 'illegal, void, capricious, ultra vires, arbitrary and oppressive.' They were sought to be set aside and a prayer for injunction restraining the defendant-Committee from preventing the plaintiff to act as its Secretary was also made. The Committee's case is that the plaintiff was a temporary employee, his services as such could at any time be terminated, and that he was suspended and later on dismissed because his work was found to be unsatisfactory, he was guilty of insubordination and he remained absent without leave. It was submitted that the resolutions were quite in order and duly adopted. The material points on which the parties were at variance have been decided against the plaintiff and the suit dismissed by the Courts below.