KANHAYA LAL Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted on trying to prove the charge of mala fides against Shri Shashpal Singh, respondent No. 2 and Shri S.C. Vermani respondent No. 6 it is necessary to set out the history of this case in some detail; though the ultimate question which alone is necessary to be decided for disposing of this writ petition, is rather brief.

(2.) In pursuance of an offer contained in letter, dated October 13, 1949 (Annexure 'A' to the written statement), the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer with respondent No. 1, the Amritsar Improvement Trust, to which body I will refer in this judgment as the respondent Trust, with effect from October 31, in that year. He was confirmd as Overseer on September 13, 1950. Subsequently the designation of his office was changed from that of Overseer to Sectional Officer. In 1964, one R.P. Mallan, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner made representations against his supersession. One such representation, dated July 16, 1964 (Annexure 'M'), was submitted by the petitioner to the Minister concerned. In that communication, the petitioner not only made a grievance of his having been superseded, but made serious allegations against Shri S.C. Vermani, respondent No. 6 who was the Engineer under whom the petitioner was serving. It was alleged in the said representation that Shri Vermani, a retired hand of Irrigation Department, having no experience of Improvement Trust work, had been appointed ignoring the claims and long experience of the petitioner and that the petitioner having made a representation against the extention of Shri Vermani's service, a second post of an Assistant Engineer was created to accommodate Shri Mallan, who was a close relative of a Trust ee of the respondent Trust . While comparing the qualifications, claims and experience of work with other candidates to the post of an Assistant Engineer, the petitioner made allegations against Shri N.S. Virdi, Shri R.P. Mallan and Shri Vermani himself. The prayer made in the representation was to set aside the appointments of Sarvshri Vermani, Virdi and Mallan, which had been made by the Chairman and to do away with the supersession of the petitioner. The petitioner's representation passed through the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, and certain enquiry appears to have been made from the Chairman of the Trust . According to the allegation in the writ petition, the explanation of the Chairman was called by the Government. This allegation is denied on behalf of the respondents. It is, however, admitted that copy of the representation was furnished to the Chairman of the Trust and certain enquires in respect of the allegations made therein was made from him. At that stage the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Chairman. No copy of the charge-sheet or of the statement of allegations against the petitioner, has been placed before t me. It, however, appears from the documents produced in this case that at least one of the charges related to some alleged corrupation by ethes petitioner. An enquiry into the charges was started on October 28, 1964. According to the contents of the final resolution (Annexure 'L'), passed at a Special meeting of they respondent Trust held on April 12, 1985, the petitioner expressed his regrets regarding the allegations made by him against one of the Trust ees, and the enquiry Officer had submitted a report exonerating the petitioner of the charge of alleged corruption, and the report of the Enquiry Officer had been recommended for acceptance to the Trust by its Chairman, whereupon it was decided by the Trust as follows :-

(3.) In the meantime, the post of the Trust Engineer itself was likely to fall vacant as Shri Vermani was a superannuated person, whose service was being extended by the Trust from time to time. The post was advertised, and the petitioner as well as Shri Vermani applied for the same. Fault had been found by the Government with some work executed under the supervision of Shri Vermani. The petitioner has produced, letter, dated October 13, 1965 (Annexure F 1) and letter, dated October 7, 1965, (Annexure F-2), to show that the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division Amritsar, had found fault with the works executed by the Trust Engineer, and that the petitioner himself had pointed out the defects in his inspection report (Annexure 'F'); the petitioner referred to the alleged inefficiency of Shri Vermani, and in that connections to the two communications referred to above (Annexures F1 and F2). As the petitioner apprehended that he would not be treated fairly by the Chairman, who according to the petitioner requested the Trust to forward his application to the Government itself for consideration. On December 30, 1965, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Chairman of the Trust (Annexure 'G'), with reference to a second advertisement for the post of Trust Engineer. In that application, the petitioner referred to his application and prayed for a copy of the said application being forwarded to the State Government for their consideration as well. He again referred to the alleged "dilapidated condition" of the Trust's affairs which state of affairs was said to be brining a bad name to the Engineering Department. On February 28, 1966, the petitioner submitted a direct communication to the Punjab Government (Annexure 'H') complaining of his earlier application not having been forwarded to the State Government and making a grievance of the Chairman having recommended Vermani's services being extended. Reference was again made to the alleged defects in the working of Shri Vermani. The above said complaint was admittedly referred by the Government to the Chairman of the Trust, though the learned counsel for the parties are not agreed on the purpose for which it was made. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the next annual increment of the petitioner fell due on May 14, 1966, but it was withheld from him. This is said to have been done in pursuance of a resolution alleged to have been passed on May 21, 1966. Office order of the Chairman, dated May 25, 1966 (Annexure 'E'), directing the withholding of the petitioner's increment for one year with future effect on account of the conduct of the Officer having been found to be not good and his work having been highly unsatisfactory, was passed, with reference to the alleged resolution of the Trust, dated May 21, 1966. The petitioner claims to have met the Chairman and to have been told that the Trust had decided to withhold his increment. The petitioner submitted application, dated June 1, 1966 (Annexure 'C'), wherein he gave out that the Chairman had given the petitioner to understand on May 26, 1966, regarding the resolution in question that it would be got corrected. A request was made by the petitioner in the said communication to direct the Accounts section to release the increment of the petitioner. When the minutes of the meeting, dated May 21, 1966, came up for confirmation before the Trust on June 27, 1966, the disputed resolution relating to the petitioner was not confirmed. A copy of the minutes of that meeting has been placed by the petitioner on record as Annexure 'P' to the writ petition. In the meeting of the Trust held on July 30, 1966 (copy of the proceedings in Annexure 'Q' to the writ petition), the application of the petitioner, dated June 1, 1966, complaining against the withholding of his increment was considered. After recording a factual note of what had happened in connection with the withholding of his increment, the consideration of the petitioner's application was "postponed". Petitioner then wrote letter, dated August 7, 1966 (Annexure 'D'), to the Chairman of the respondent Trust for the grant of the increment in question to him as the resolution of the Trust on the basis of which the order of the Chairman was alleged to have been passed had not been confirmed.