J.K.Tandon, J. - (1.) In both these petitions the petitioner is Sri Seoti Prasad, Executive Officer of the Municipal Board at Farrukhabad. He has been on that post since 1940. Dr. Raghubir Datt Sharma, respondent No. 1 in petition No. 2098 of 1958, is the President of the said Board to which office he was elected in 1957. Prior to that Dr. Sarin, who is not a party here, used to be the President for some years. The petitioner has alleged that there was professional rivalry between Raghubir Sharma, on the one hand, and Dr. Sarin, on the other. Raghubir Dutt Sharma was also a member of the Board during the period Dr. Sarin was the President and according to the petitioner Dr. Raghubir Datt Sharma was always eager to discredit Dr. Sarin's administration and to that end in view he wanted the petitioner also to help him in his plans which he did not accept. With this background when Dr. Raghubir Datt Sharma assumed the office of the President of the Board in 1947 he soon after manoeuvred a number of complaints to be made by members of his group against the petitioner and also succeeded in getting at least four resolutions passed against him at the meeting of the Board held on 23rd September 1957. On 8th January 1958 he then called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by the following day on the four resolutions and again on 21st January 1958 served upon him 24 charges, which were later supplemented by few more making the total 39, accusing him of misconduct etc. At the same time he on 21st January 1958 suspended the petitioner pending completion of the enquiry against him.
(2.) The petition contains certain allegations also to the effect that the respondent No. 1 did not at first allow the petitioner inspection etc. of certain documents which were material for answering the charges and that it was after considerable difficulty that he was allowed to see such of them only as the respondent considered necessary. The petitioner's purpose in referring to these details clearly is to allege that he had not been afforded the opportunity which he wanted.
(3.) It is both parties case that the proceedings against the petitioner were started under Section 69-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. There are two independent provisions in the U. P. Municipalities Act. One is contained in Section 58 which gives to the Board the power to punish, dismiss or remove its Executive Officer by a special resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the members constituting the Board. Against the order of the Board punishing, dismissing or removing the officer, the section also provides an appeal to the State Government within 30 days o the communication to him of the order of punishment or dismissal. The second provision is in Section 69-A which vests the President with power to initiate enquiry against an Executive Officer where he has reasons to believe that such officer is corrupt or has persistently failed in the discharge of his duty or is other-wise guilty of misconduct. As it will be necessary in the course of discussion to refer to the several provisions contained in these sections it is worthwhile to produce them in this judgment. They read as follows : "58 (1) A board may punish, dismiss or remove its executive officer by a special resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the members constituting the board, subject to his right of appeal to the State Government within thirty days of the communication to him of the order of punishment or dismissal. (2) The State Government may suspend the Executive Officer pending the decision of an appeal under Sub-section (1) and may allow, disallow or vary the order of the board. (3) ...... ...... ...." "69-A (1) If the President has reasons to believe that the Executive Officer or the Secretary or any of the other officers of the Board appointed under Section 68, is corrupt, or has persistently failed in the discharge of his duties or is otherwise guilty of misconduct, he may frame charges against him and where he is satisfied that it is so necessary, he may, for reasons to be recorded, suspend him pending the completion of enquiry. (2) Whenever the President takes action under Sub-section (1) he shall inform the State Government and also forward to it a copy of the charges framed. (3) The enquiry under Sub-section (1) shall be carried on in such manner as may be prescribed by rules. (4) After the enquiry is completed, the President shall submit the record with his recommendation to the State Government or to the Board as he may consider fit. The State Government or the Board, as the case may be, shall thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 58, or 67 or 69, proceed to consider the report and may, after such further enquiry as it may deem necessary, suspend, dismiss, remove or exonerate the Executive Officer or the Secretary or such ether officer to whom Section 69 applies, as the case may be. (5) Whenever the Board acts under Sub-section (4) the condition prescribed in Section 58 shall apply and an appeal shall lie to the State Government in the matter and to the extent provided in the said section.";