ANDHIR SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Andhir Singh was dismissed from the service of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, by its Commissioner by an order dated May 1, 1987, when he was posted as a Chowkidar at the Carignano Rest House, Mashobra. The order was passed after an enquiry into charges levelled against Shri Andhir Singh through a charge -sheet dated December 22, 1986, on two charges, The first charge was that Andhir Singh had intentionally avoided the receipt of transfer orders from Municipal Rest House Carignano to Seog Rest House to the post of Chowkidar -cum -Cook which amounted to wilful neglect of duty and deliberate insubordination on his part The second charge was that he had disobeyed the orders to hand -over the charge of Municipal Rest House, Carignano, to his relieving official Daulat Ram. The enquiry was held by the Asstt. Secretary (Tax) of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who had been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The punishing authority was the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.

(2.) The Inquiry Officer had taken the view that whereas the first charge stood proved against petitioner Andhir Singh, the second charge was not established. The Commissioner, as the Disciplinary Authority, however, found both the charges established. He proposed the punishment of dismissal from service and after considering the reply to the show cause notice given by petitioner Andhir Singh, imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner.

(3.) Under the Himachal Pradesh Municipalities Servants (Punishment, Removal, Suspension and Appeal) Rules, 1971, (hereafter, "the Rules") procedure for imposing penalties and for the enquiry relating thereto is provided in Rule 7. Rules 14 to 20 of these Rules, occurring in Part V, relate to appeals An appeal lies against an order of dismissal from service in Rule 15 (ii) The appellate authority, in the case of an order of dismissal from service, is the Deputy Commissioner of the District in a case where the order is passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. Rules 17 and 18 relate to the period of limitation during which the appeal can be filed and the form and the contents of the appeal. Rule 19 lays down, in detail, the procedure for consideration of appeal by the appellate authority. Rule 19 (2), in so far as it is material for the present case, says that: (2) in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 5 , the appellate authority shall consider - (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non -compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record ; and whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe ; and pass orders - (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty ; or (ii) .............." Penalties are provided in Rule 5 which include the penalty of dismissal from service.