G.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by Sir Narsingh Bhan Singh, respondent No. 1, and quashing the order of the State Government dated December 20, 1958, by which it had reviewed its previous order dated February 25, 1958.
(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a temporary Toll Tax Inspector by the appellant on January 28, 1949, and he took charge of this post on February 1, 1949. He was confirmed in this post on March 15, 1949. According to respondent No. 1, sometime later, he officiated as Toll Tax Superintendent and was confirmed in that post on June 5, 1955. This fact is not admitted by the appellant, but we are not called upon to decide the correctness thereof. On February 21, 1956, the President of the Municipal Board suspended respondent No. 1 and thereafter purporting to act under Section 74 of the U.P. Municipalities Act he passed the following order dismissing the respondent No. 1 from service: "After careful consideration in the case of Sri Narsingh Bhan Singh, T.I. under suspension, I find that he was charge-sheeted for serious charges. The explanation received was not found satisfactory. Again he was served with a show cause notice to explain why he should not be dismissed and was asked to submit his explanation by 20th July 1956, but he failed to submit it by the time prescribed. As such the charges framed against him will remain unrebutted. I dismiss him from the municipal service with effect from July 25, 1956. He will get one-fourth of his pay with proportionate D.A. for the period of suspension. A copy of the order be served on him." Against this order of dismissal the respondent No. 1 preferred on August 22, 1956, an appeal to the State Government. By an order dated February 25, 1958, the State Government allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondent No. 1 to be reinstated and "posted again to his substantive post of Toll Tax Superintendent. Since the Municipal Board was of the view that the respondent No. 1 never substantively held the post Tax Superintendent but held the substantive post of only the Toll Tax Inspector, the President by a letter dated March 22, 1958, made a representation to the Government that the respondent No. 1 should have been ordered to be reinstated as a Toll Tax Inspector and not as a Toll Tax Superintendent. After receiving this representation the State Government made further enquiries, gave the respondent No. 1 a further hearing and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 held the substantive post of Toll Tax Inspector and not of Toll Tax Superintendent. Accordingly by an order dated December 20, 1958, the State Government reviewed its previous order of February 25, 1958 and directed that the respondent No. 1 be reinstated to his substantive post of a Toll Tax Inspector.
(3.) Thereupon the respondent No. 1 filed two writ petitions in this Court. Civil Misc. Writ No. 265 of 1959 was filed for quashing the order of the State Government dated December 20, 1958, on the ground that the State Government had no power to review its previous order. Civil Misc. Writ No. 1375 of 1959 was filed for a mandamus compelling the Municipal Board to give effect to the order dated December 20, 1958, if that order was not quashed in the earlier writ petition. The two writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge and were disposed of by a common order. The learned single Judge held that the second order of the State Government dated December 20, 1958, was passed after giving a due hearing to the respondent No. 1, that the first order passed by the State Government dated February 25, 1958, on the appeal of the respondent No. 1 was a quasi-judicial order, that the State Government did not have the power to review, alter or vary its quasi-judicial order and that accordingly the second order dated December 20, 1958, reviewing the first order was made without jurisdiction. The learned single Judge accordingly allowed Civil Misc. Writ No. 265 of 1959, quashed the order of the State Government dated December 20, 1958, and directed the Municipal Board to implement the order of the State Government dated February 25, 1958, since the learned single Judge allowed Civil Misc. Writ No. 265 of 1958, it was unnecessary to press Civil Misc. Writ No. 1375 of 1959 on merits and it was dismissed on that ground. It is against this judgment that the present special appeal has been filed.;