Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner at the relevant period was employed as a Sanitary Inspector under the Municipal Commissioners of Jalpaiguri, who constituted the Jalpaiguri Municipality. In or about the 9th May, 1951, he was dismissed from the Municipality, but it is not necessary to deal with this order of dismissal, as it has been subsequently set aside by Government and it is nobody's case that the order became effective. At a meeting of the Commissioners held on the 3rd August, 1953, it was resolved that certain charges should be formulated against the petitioner and the Resolution proceeded as follows : "It is hereby resolved that Sri Prafulla Chandra Chakravarty be called upon to submit his explanation or re plies to the said charges by 11-8-53. He is to show cause in writing, why on the said charges adequate punishment shall not be awarded to him and he shall not be dismissed from service or otherwise dealt with."
(2.) Thereafter, three charges were framed. The petitioner showed cause. The Commissioners met at a special meeting on the 19th August, 1953, to consider his explanation. It appears that the petitioner was personally present The Commissioner considered the charges and found them established. The minutes of that date proceeds to say as follows : "The Commissioners found all the charges against him fully established and he was given another opportunity to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service with effect from 20.2.51, the date from which he absented himself from duty. He did not avail himself of that opportunity and refused to make any statement orally beyond what he has stated in the written reply dated 17.8.53." It was resolved that the petitioner "is hereby dismissed from service with effect from 20.2.51."
(3.) The petitioner challenges this order of dismissal on the ground that he belongs to a category of employees of the Municipality who by virtue of section 67(3) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, could only be removed from office by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners of the Municipality. According to him the Resolution was not supported by two-thirds of the whole number of Commission s of the Municipality. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted that the Resolution was not supported by two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners of the Municipality, by virtue of the fact that two of the members refused to attend the meeting and hence the requisite two-third majority could not be procured. It is stated, however, that even though the requisite two-third majority could not be procured, still the petitioner could he removed with the e sent of the State Government under section 66(2) (iii) of the said Act. It is said that the master has been forwarded to Government and is pending their decision. The result is that, looked at from any point of view, the petitioner has not yet been dismissed in accordance with law. If that is so, he should have been told that the matter was pending decision of the State Government and I think that in the absence of such an intimation he is perfectly justified in making this application as the Resolution prima facie purports to dismiss him from service. The point which I have to decide in this case is within a small compass, namely, whether on the facts and circumstances of this case section 66(2) (iii) applies or section 67(3) applies. Mr. Basu argues that section 66 speaks in general terms about the appointment and dismissal of the employees of the Municipality and section 66(2) (iii) lays down in general terms that if a person holds an office carrying a monthly salary of Rs. 100 or more (which is the case here) such an employee can be dismissed if the Resolution is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners of the Municipality. But if the requisite number of votes cannot be obtained, still he could be dismissed with the consent of the State Government. On the other hand Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that section 67 (3) lays down a special procedure to be adopted in the case of certain category of employees including that of a Sanitary Inspector. According to Mr. Basu, the whole of section 67 deals with the case where the Commissioner failed to appoint certain officers and the Government compels them to do so. I regret I am unable to accept this argument. With regard to section 67(1) and 62(2) it is clearly so. In fact, in section 67 (2) it has been specifically said that it would apply in the case of an officer "appointed under sub-section; (1)". There is no such limitation laid down in section 67(3), and it is an ordinary rule of interpretation that one cannot read words into a statutory provision which are not there. It is, in my opinion, possible to reconcile between the provisions of section 66(2) (iii) and section 67(3). While section 66(2) (iii) gives the general power of dismissal, it is modified by section 67 (3) in the case of certain category of employees, in whose case there has been granted a statutory safeguard, namely, the existence of a Resolution to which not less than two-thirds of the entire body of Commissioners subscribed their votes. In such cases, where the Municipality has failed to obtain the requisite number of votes, the consent of the State will not improve matters and is of no avail. I do not think that there is anything wrong on principle, since these officers appear to be holding offices of some importance in the Municipality and the Legislature thought that their dismissal should not be left to the vagaries of a minority of Commissioners, irrespective of whether their views coincided with the State Government or not.;