SUKHDEV AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Sukhdev Aggarwal, challenging the legality of the notification dated 29th of July, 1968, issued by the Haryana Government, withdrawing the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931 (hereinafter called the 1931 Act) extended to the Municipal Committee, Hissar, with immediate effect and thereby indirectly removing the petitioner from the post of Executive Officer of the said Municipal Committee. A writ of mandamus is also claimed for the re-instatement of the petitioner as an Executive Officer with retrospective effect.

(2.) According to the allegations of the petitioner, he was a law Graduate and was enrolled as an Advocate in 1962. He practised at Hissar upto the end of March, 1966. He applied for the post of Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Hissar, and was selected as such by the said Municipal Committee on 26th of October, 1965, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the 1931 Act. The Municipal Committee recommended his name for approval to the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar. The said approval was given by the Government in April, 1966, for a period of five years from that date. He had been working as an Executive Officer to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. Suddenly, he received a copy of the impugned notification dated 29th of July, 1968, issued by the State Government withdrawing the 1931 Act in its application to the Municipal Committee, Hissar. The petitioner, who was appointed Executive Officer for a fixed period of five years, was entitled to continue as such up to 20th April, 1971. The result of the impugned notification was that he was removed from service before the expiry of the said period, without his being given any notice to show cause against the said action, which was against all principles of natural justice. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 6th of August, 1968.

(3.) In the return filed by the State, it was mentioned that the Municipal Committee, Hissar was superseded by Government notification dated 22nd of July, 1968. As a consequence of that supersession, the 1931 Act was also withdrawn from the said Committee by means of the impugned notification dated 29th of July, 1968. It was admitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Executive Officer for a period of five years. Under Section 3(i) of the 1931 Act, the Executive Officer could be appointed for a renewable period of five years and the Government could not do it either for a shorter or a longer period. The petitioner, however, ceased to hold the said post from the date the 1931 Act was withdrawn. An Executive Officer, appointed under the 1931 Act, was neither a Government servant nor a Municipal employee, but a creature of a special statute according to which he was appointed and it was not possible to go outside the statute or the rules made there under for any matter governing his appointment, punishment or removal. There was nothing in the 1931 Act to indicate that an opportunity had to be given to the Executive Officer before he was removed from his post. The withdrawal of the 1931 Act from the Municipal Committee, Hissar, was a natural consequence in the wake of the supersession of that Committee. With the appointment of an Administrative of the Committee, there would be overlapping of functions of the Administrative and the Executive Officer, if the post of the latter was retained.