K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE Town Area Committee, Khair, district Aligarh, has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution challenging the order of Sri. A.K.S. Solanki, Additional District Magistrate, dated 27 -2 -1976, allowing the appeal of the Respondent Sia Saran Sharma.
(2.) SIA Saran Sharma, Respondent No. 2 was employed by the Town Area Committee. His services were terminated by the Town Area but his appeal was allowed on 12 -3 -1975. Chairman of the Town Area Committee again issued a notice on 31 -3 -1975 terminating the services of Sia Saran Sharma for the reason that there was no necessity of a clerk on account of budgetary provisions made for the year 1975 -76. Sia Saran filed appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee. The appeal was heard and allowed by A.K.S. Solanki, Additional District Magistrate on 27 -2 -1976. The Additional District Magistrate set aside the order of the Chairman firstly on the ground that the order was malafide; and secondly, the Chairman was not competent to abolish the post and terminate the Petitioner's services. The Respondent was not the junior most person and due to abolition of post the Respondent's services could not be terminated. Aggrieved, the Town Area Committee has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that A.K.S. Solanki had no jurisdiction to decide the Respondent's appeal as he had never been authorised by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, to hear and decide the appeal. On behalf of Respondents it was urged that the order of the District Magistrate, Aligarh, dated 12 -2 -1976 issued in exercise of his powers under Section 4 of the Town Area Act delegated all powers conferred on him to B.P. Mathur, Extra Magistrate, Officer -in -Charge of the town area. The order purported to delegate powers to confirm appointment of Bakshi, to dismiss and remove any permanent employee whose pay exceeds rupees thirty under Section 10 as well as the power to hear appeals under Section 29(2) to B.P. Mathur. The Petitioner has asserted that the District Magistrate had not delegated any power to A.K.S. Solanki to hear or decide the Respondent's appeal.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate it is asserted that in view of Section 20(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any Additional District Magistrate could exercise all or any powers of the District Magistrate under the Town Areas Act. Under Section 20(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an Additional District Magistrate is authorised in a general manner to exercise all or any of the powers of the District Magistrate before the amendment of the Act in 1978. The power so conferred on the Additional District Magistrate was general in nature. If the District Magistrate had not delegated all his powers to B.P. Mathur, the position would have been different. In the instant case the District Magistrate had issued a positive order delegating the powers conferred on him under the U.P. Town Area Act to B.P. Mathur. In the absence of delegation of powers the question of application of Section 20(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could arise but when the repository of power delegated his powers to only one of the Additional District Magistrate, other Addl. District Magistrate could not exercise that power. Sri. Solanki could not, therefore, exercise the powers of the District Magistrate including the powers to hear appeals.;