KANHAIYA LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Gumashta in the service of the Municipal Board, Rajaldesar (hereinafter called 'the Board') on July 18, 1946. While he was working in that capacity, he was found guilty of negligence and embezzlement of public fund and was dismissed from the service of the Board by the order dated August 18, 1951 passed by the Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan. Jaipur. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government but the Government rejected his appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal of the petitioner, which fact was communicated to the petitioner by the Director of Local Bodies vide his letter dated November 4, 1952. The petitioner again applied to the Board for fresh employment on the post of a Clerk on December 9, 1959. At that time, Laduram cousin brother of the petitioner happened to be the Chairman of the Board and by a resolution of the Board passed at its meeting held on December 11, 1959 and over which Laduram presided, the petitioner was again employed as a Revenue Clerk in the service of the Board. In the resolution of the Board dated December 11, 1959 (Ex. 8) it was observed that the petitioner was earlier 'removed' on the ground of ill -will but he was not at fault. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training for the post of Sanitary Inspector and was eventually appointed as Sanitary Inspector by the resolution of the Board dated May 9, 1962 while he was asked to perform the duties of the post of Revenue Clerk as well. The Administrator of the Board wrote a letter to the Collector, Churu on July 12, 1963 informing him that the Board at its general meeting held on May 9, 1962 promoted the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector and that administrative sanction for the creation of the post of Sanitary Inspector be accorded, as also for the appointment of the petitioner against the aforesaid post. The Collector, Churu by his letter dated July 17, 1963 gave administrative sanction for the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Inspector with effect from the date he started working on that post. The petitioner continued in the Municipal Board for a few years. But after the lapse of some time it came to the notice of the Board that the petitioner had earlier been dismissed from the service of the Board. On July 10, 1967, the then Administrator of the Board, after obtaining the explanation of the petitioner, wrote to the Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, that the petitioner was a dismissed employee and that he had obtained fresh employment in the Board by suppressing the true facts and that it would be proper to remove such a person from the employment of the Board who obtained employment by practicing deception and by not disclosing the fact of his earlier dismissal from the service of the Board. The Director of Local Bodies agreed with the view of the Administrator. Thereupon, the Chairman of the Board by his order dated May 26, 1971 (Ex. 16) directed that the services of the petitioner may be put to an end with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order passed by the Chairman of the Board to the Collector, of Churn, who by his order dated September 7, 1971 remanded the matter to the Board with the direction that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing before his se vice is terminated. Thereafter, the Board by its letter dated October 23, 1971 gave an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated in the aforesaid circumstances an after obtaining the petitioner's explanation, the Chairman of the Board confirmed the earlier order dated May 26, 1971 terminating the service of the petitioner. It appeals that soon thereafter, the Board was reconstituted and Goverdhanlal Sharma became the new Chairman of the Board and then the Hoard in its meeting dated November 15, 1971, held under the Chairmanship of Goverdhanlal Sharma, set aside the proceedings taken by the earlier Chairman of the Board and decided to restore the petitioner to his post in accordance with the appointment order dated December 11, 1959 and to make payment to him of all arrears of his salary. Sometime later, one Bhanwarlal Purohit took over as the new Chairman of the Board and then on October 31, 1972, the Board again considered the question of retention of the petitioner in the service of the Board and held that the fresh appointment of the petitioner made on December 11, 1959 was illegal because Shri Laduram a close relation of the petitioner was then the Chairman of the Board and the fact of earlier dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board was also not brought to the notice of the Board at that time. Similarly, on November 15, 1971, Goverdhanlal Sharma appended to be the Chairman of the Board, who was also a close relative of the petitioner and this time again the fact that the petitioner was dismisses from the service of the Board on grounds of gross negligence and embezzlement of public funds was not brought to the notice of the Board. The Board thereupon could not be re employed and as he necessary facts regarding his earlier dismissal from the se vice of the Board, on grounds of gross -negligence and embezzlement of funds on his part, were not brought to the notice of the Board at the relevant time, the Board held that the fresh appointment of the petitioner was improper and set aside the same. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, Churu was dismissed on March 27, 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner, having felt aggrieved from the order of the Board dated October 31, 1972 terminating the service has filed the present writ petition in this Court. The main submission of the petitioner's learned Counsel is that the earlier dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board did not coinstitute a legal bar against his re -employment, and as such, the Board was not competent to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that his reappointment was illegal. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Board submitted in the first instance that the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board was a disqualification for his future employment by the same Board and in the second place, it was submitted by him that the re -employment of the petitioner was illegal as it was brought about by practicing deception and by deliberate misrepresentation in rot disclosing the true facts about his earlier dismissal before the Board of the time of re -employment by the Board on December 11, 1919. In the third place, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Board that both the orders of the Board dated December 11, 1959 and November 15, 1971 were invalid void on the ground that the then Chairman of the Board were close relations of the petitioner and as they had a bias in favour of the petitioner, they were disqualified from taking part in the aforesaid meetings of the Board and from presiding over the said meetings of the Board It was then argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector on May 9, 1962 and that appointment could not be set aside by the Board subsequently as it was also confirmed by the Collector on behalf of the State.

(3.) IN Gullapolli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road. Transport Corporation and Ors. : AIR1959SC308 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe as under,.It is also a matter of fundamental importance that a person interested in one party or the other should not, even formally take part in the proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind of the person, who finally derides the case. This is on the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done.. Thus the order of re -employment of the petitioner was void ab initio, being brought about as a result of bias and on account of the non -disclosure of relevant and important facts relating to the previous dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Board.