Decided on July 19,1954

Dogar Ram Appellant


- (1.) This judgment will dispose of two applications (Civil Writ Applications Nos. 296 and 297 of 1953) under Article 226 of the Constitution. In both these petitions the question involved is the same the right of the Small Town Committee to dismiss a servant of theirs without there a charge-sheet and a proper enquiry in accordance with the rules. In Civil Writ Application No. 296 of 1953 Dogar Ram, the petitioner, was dismissed on the 18th April, 1953 under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner dated the 25th March, 1953 on three grounds of negligence (1) that one Jagir Singh had imported a car without payment of octroi duty, (2) Ram Singh and Iqbal Singh had imported a tractor without payment of octroi duty, and (3) that Jagir Singh had imported some bricks into the Small Town Committee area without payment of octroi duty. The petitioner alleges that no charges were not recorded and no finding had been given in regard to each of the charges that even where the Deputy Commissioner requires the dismissed of a servant the rules have to be followed, and that he appealed to the Deputy Commissioner as prescribed under the rules but his appeal was not decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, who dismissal it on the ground that he had been advised by the Deputy Secretary of the Local Self-Government Department that such an appeal did not lie. It is admitted by the opposite party that no charge framed and no opportunity was given as required under Rule 3(1) of the rules of the Small Town Act but it is pleaded that the officer in charge of the Local Bodies had explained the substance of the evidence against the petitioner to him and had recorded his statement on these three charges. They have also pleaded that there was an enquiry and the petitioner "could not exonerate himself from the charge of the slackness... " and for that reason he has been dismissed.
(2.) In Civil Writ Application No. 297 of 1953 Ram Kishan who was the Secretary of the Samrala Small Town Committee was Similarly dismissed on the 8th April, 1953 under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner dated the 20th of March, 1953. The charge against him was of his not, submitting his explanation although he was called upon to do so twice. The charges against him were those contained in paragraph 6 and in his petition also he submits that Rules 3(1) and 3(3) made under the Act have not been complied with and therefore his dismissed is illegal. In their reply the opposite party have pleaded that provisions of rule 3(1) of the Small Town Act Rules were duly observed in regard to the main charge i.e. the Secretary did not bring to the notice of the Small Town Committee the order passed on a previous application of Dalip Singh.
(3.) The learned Advocate General showed cause on behalf of the Small Town Committee and submitted that it was not necessary to hold any enquiry when the Committee is called upon to dismissed a person under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner and he relied on section 11, Proviso (1) which is as under :- "If in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, for reasons to be stated in writing, any officer or servant employed by the Committee is unfit for his employment the committee shall on the requirement of the Deputy Commissioner dismiss him." Section 14(2) is as follows :- "14(2) Subject to any rules which the State Government may make in this behalf, a committee may suspend or dismiss any of its officers or servants.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.