R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) TWO questions relating to the correct interpretation and true scope of Rule 42 of the, Punjab Chaukidara Rules, 1876 (as amended up to May, 1965) call for decision in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances:
(2.) BADLU Petitioner, a Chowkidar of village Chulkana tehsil Sonepat, district Rohtak, made a complaint against Shri Chand, Respondent No. 4, who was the Daffadar of that village. The Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Sonepat, made enquiries into the complaint and by his order, dated November 6, 1968, (Annexure 'A') held that Shri Chand was not performing his duties properly, but let him off with admonitibn. Shri Chand was allowed to continue in his post though he was warned to be more careful in future. Against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. That appeal was allowed by the order of the Deputy Commisisoner, (who was also the Collector of the district), dated April 28, 1969, (Annexure 'B'). He held that Shri Chand, Respondent could not be retained on the post of Daffadar. He, accordingly, set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer and dismissed Shri Chand from the post of Daffadar. I am given to understand that by a subsequent order the Petitioner was appointed as Daffadar in place of Shri Chand. This is being mentioned in order to make it clear that the Petitioner had some actual interest in this litigation though, even otherwise, he would have been entitled to maintain his petition as the proceedings against Shri Chand had been initiated by him. Shri Chand Respondent, who was naturally aggrieved by the order of the. Deputy Commissioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Shri R.I.N. Ahuja the Commissioner, allowed the appeal by his order, dated January, 15, 1970 (Annexure 'C') and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the solitary ground that the Sub -Divisional Officer had passed his order (Annexure 'A') in exercise of powers which had been delegated to him by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 11 of the Chaukidara Rules and, having so delegated those powers, the Deputy Commissioner could! not again exercise the powers himself in appeal. On that basis alone, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing Shri Chand was set aside as being illegal and void and the order at the Sub -Divisional Officer was restored. That order of the Commissioner was impugned in this petition. The State as well as Shri Chand have contested the petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner his submitted that (1) the Commissioner had no Jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and (2) the order of the Deputy Commissioner was within his jurisdiction and, therefore, the Commissioner's order suffers from an error of law apparent on its face. The answer to both these questions depends on the correct interpretation of Rule 42. Rules 11 and 42 of the Chaukidara Rules, which have been framed under Section 39 -A of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, may be reproduced at this stage: 11. The Deputy Commissioner, or the officer duly authorised by him in that behalf, may dismiss any village watchmen or daffadar for any misconduct or neglect of duty or physical unfitness for the performance of his duties. * * * * * * * * * * 42. All orders of the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the fixing of the number of village watchmen, the mode of their remuneration and the levying of the same, shall be subject to control, revision and alteration by the Commissioner to whom he is subordinate, but all orders by a delegated authority shall be appealable to the Deputy Commissioner or to such authority as the Deputp Commissioner may specify. The learned Counsel for the State was not able to defend the impugned order of the Commissioner. Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, who has argued this case with great ability, however, submitted that though the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner because of the limited revisional jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner by the opening part of Rule 42, I should decline to interfere in this case as the result of merely setting aside the order of the Commissioner would be to restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was passed by him without having any jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Gaur has secondly contended that the second part of Rule 42, which purports to confer on the Deputy Commissioner jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by himself through his delegate is invalid and ultra vires. Since the vires of a rule framed by the State Government had been questioned by Mr. Gaur, I gave notice of this petition to the Advocate -General of Haryana, who has, in response to the notice, been heard today.
(3.) RIGHT of appeal does not exist unless it is conferred by some statute. It is the common case of both sides that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in the matter of interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner is confined to the first part of Rule 42. This means that the Commissioner can revise or alter only such orders of a Deputy Commissioner which relate to the fixing of the number of watchmen, the mode of the remuneration of village watchmen or relate to the levying of the same. No revisional or appellate jurisdiction has been conferred on the Commissioner to interfere with any other kind of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (or his delegate) under the Punjab Chaukidara Rules. It is plain that the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure 'B') neither related to the fixing of the number of village watchmen nor to the mode of the remuneration nor to the matter of levying of the same. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed on that short ground.;