A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated September 23, 1982 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal partly allowing the claim petition of Shyamlal, the respondent No. 3, and setting aside the order dated March 23, 1978 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division (upon an appeal filed by the petitioner) and declaring Shyamlal to have continued on the post of Toll and Octroi Superintendent as before. The Commissioner had by the aforesaid order set aside the resolution dated July 10, 1971 passed by the Municipal Board, Shamli, annulling the order passed by the President of the said Board dismissing Shyamlal from service. As a result of the Commissioner's Order the petitioner who was reverted pursuant to the resolution of the Municipal Board dated July 10, 1971 stood reinstated to the post of Toll and Octroi Superintendent. These are the essential facts. Shyamlal aforesaid was appointed as a clerk in 1956. On December 31, 1960 the services of one Mittra Sain who was working as Head Clerk were terminated A.N. Gupta who was at that time Toll and Octroi Superintendent in the Board was appointed in place of Mittra Sain as Head Clerk and in the vacancy of A.N. Gupta, Shyamlal was promoted and appointed as the Toll and Octroi Superintendent. Mittra Sain approached the State Government against the termination on his services by way of a representation which was allowed on July 26, 1964. A direction was issued to the Board to reinstate him on his post of Head Clerk. Pursuant thereto, the Board passed a resolution reinstating Mittra Sain as Head Clerk and sending A.N. Gupta to his original post of Toll and Octroi Superintendent and Shyamlal to the post of Clerk. Neither A.N. Gupta nor Shyamlal, however, joined the posts to which they had been transferred/reverted in consequence of reinstatement of Mittra Sain. Shyamlal then filed a civil suit No. 38 of 1965 for a declaration that the order of his reversion passed by the Municipal Board was null and void. This suit was decreed by the trial court on September 23, 1967. The Municipal Board filed an appeal against this decree and prayed for an interim relief for stay of the operation of the decree passed by the trial court which was granted subject to an undertaking given on behalf of the Board that the salary of Toll and Octroi Superintendent shall be deposited in the executing court.
(2.) MEANWHILE due to the absence of A.N. Gupta who had failed to join the post of Toll and Octroi Superintendent after the reinstatement of Mittra Sain, the petitioner was appointed in his place as Toll and Octroi Superintendent on November 26, 1965 and as Shyamlal too had not joined the post to which he had been reverted disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the President of the Board under Section 74. Eventually by an order dated June 17, 1969 the President dismissed Shyamlal from service. Thereupon the Board withdrew the aforesaid appeal predictably as the same together with the suit had became infructuous after Shyamlal had been dismissed from service. After the dismissal of Shyamlal from service, the petitioner was confirmed on his post as Toll and Octroi Superintendent by an order dated January 1, 1970 Shyamlal did not challenge the order of dismissal passed against him either by way of an appeal or otherwise by way of a writ petition. Instead he appears to have approached the Board which passed a resolution dated December 10, 1971 annulling the order passed by the President on June 17, 1969 dismissing Shyamlal from service. The Board further directed that Shyamlal had to be reinstated as Toll and Octroi Superintendent and the petitioner be reverted to his original post from which he had been promoted as Toll and Octroi Superintendent. In pursuance of this resolution the President of the Board passed an order dated July 12, 1971 reverting the petitioner from the post of Tolland Octroi Superintendent to his original post of Octroi Inspector. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Commissioner Meerut Division who allowed the same by his order dated March 22, 1978 setting aside the aforesaid order dated July 12, 1971 on the ground that Board's resolution dated July 10, 1971 on the basis of which the above order was issued was null and void. The above order of the Commissioner was successfully challenged by Shyamlal by way of a reference before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal as mentioned above. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner, firstly, on the ground that inasmuch as Shyamlal had not been given any opportunity of being heard in the appeal filed by the petitioner the same was void ad initio inasmuch as it directly affected his rights and, secondly, on the ground that with the dismissal of the appeal of the Board, the decree passed by the trial court in suit No. 38 of 1965 became final and binding on the Board was consequently the order of dismissal passed against Shyamlal was void and ineffectual in law. On these findings the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of Shyamlal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner dated March 22, 1978 and declared Shyamlal to have continued substantively on the post of Toll and Octroi Superintendent as before.
(3.) THE above order of the Tribunal was assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner broadly on two grounds: First, that the resolution passed by the municipal Board on July 10, 1971 was completely null and void as the Board had not been invested with any power of appeal, review or supervision against the order passed by the President under Section 74 of the U.P. Municipalities Act under which Shyamlal had been dismissed: Second, that the Tribunal committed a patent error in holding that in view of the decree passed in suit No. 38 of 1965 the order of dismissal passed against Shyamlal could have no legal effect.;