H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) Sharat Chand Misra has filed this appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court dated 20th July, 1970 dismissing his writ petition directed against a resolution passed by the Zila Parishad, Hamirpur, dated 9-11-1963 terminating his services under rule 3-A(iv) of the Rules regarding Officers and servants of the District Board on payment of three months salary in lieu of notice.
(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner advanced the following arguments in support of his case that the resolution terminating his services as Secretary of Zila Parishad, was illegal: 1. That rule 3A(iv) under which the petitioner's services have been terminated, confers arbitrary powers and is discriminatory and must,therefore, be struck down for contravening Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Even assuming that rule 3-A(iv) is valid and en forcible, its requirement shave not been fulfilled in ti-c case of the petitioner because he was not paid three months' salary to which he was entitled in lieu of notice, either at the time when the impugned resolution was passed or when a copy of the resolution was served on him. 3. The resolution passed at the meeting of the Zila Parishad on 9-11-1963 was Invalid because the termination of petitioner's services was not a matter included in the agenda for that meeting and 4. The termination of the petitioner's services is a disguised order of punishment vitiated by mala fides.
(3.) The learned single judge did not accept the contention that rule 3-A(iv) of the rules regarding officers and servants of the District Board was invalid being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution.He did not find any defect in the resolution passed by the Zila Parishad terminating petitioners' services and held it to be valid. So far as the last point was concerned, the learned judge observed that there was nothing in the petition to show how any mala fides could be impugned to the entire Zila Parishad which passed the impugned resolution.Since it could not be said that the entire Zila Parishad bore an animus against the petitioner, the resolution was not tainted with mala fides and could not be interfered with. In the result he dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner "has now come up in appeal and has urged all the four arguments that were advanced before the learned Single Judge.;