RAM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6576, 6572 to 6575, 6577 and 6580 of 1975 project common questions of Law and fact. All these writ petitions shall be disposed of by this judgment. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are employees of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). On July 24, 1975 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 6574 of 1975 on July 26, 1975) the Committee served notices of discharge on the petitioners purporting to be under Section 45 (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act). The wording of the notice (Annexure P-2 in all the Petitions) is the same. For facility of reference the notice issued in the case of Ram Nath petitioner (Civil Writ Petition No. 6576 of 1975) is reproduced below:

(2.) According to the averments in the writ petitions the petitioners in each case were working on their respective posts efficiently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the Authorities. In spite of this, the abovementioned notices were served upon them in consequence of which the petitioners had been discharged with immediate effect from the services of the Committee as the same were no more required by the Committee. The petitioners filed appeals/representations to the, Government but no action on the same had been taken. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the legality of these notices on various grounds as mentioned in their petitions.

(3.) All the grounds of attack embodied in the petitions need not, however, be recapitulated as the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments solely to the point contained in ground No. (vii). The crux of the arguments in this behalf is that even if the impugned notice is treated as a notice under Section 45 (1) of the Act, the said notice did not comply with the mandatory provisions of that section. A two-pronged objection has been raised in this connection. The contention firstly is that the section envisaged issue of one month's notice, and not a tender of one month's salary in lieu of notice, and secondly the tender of one month's salary was in any case not a legal or valid tender, as the amount representing one month's salary was not actually offered to the petitioners at the time of the service of the notices upon them. Let us examine these contentions.