R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Octroi Clerk with the Municipal Committee, Dhuri was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry vide order dated 5th April, 1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee. In this order it was mentioned that the suspension was with effect from 6th April, 1990. This order was, however, followed by another order of the same date (Annexure P-2) mentioning that the date 6th April, 1990 from which date the suspension was made effective vide order Annexure P-1, should be corrected as 5th April, 1990. In other words the suspension was to take effect from 5th April, 1990. the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the suspension order (Annexure P-2). the ground of attack against the suspension order was that it was only the Municipal Committee (and in the present case the Administrator as there was no elected Municipal Committee) who could pass the suspension order and the executive officer of the Municipal Committee, who had actually passed the order of suspension, had no authority to pass the order and the order being wholly without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed.
(2.) Mr. Ashok Nabhewala, learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate the above mentioned submission, drew my attention to Section 39 of the Punjab Municipal Act to show that the Appointing Authority in case of the petitioner was the Committee. Section 39(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act is quoted below for ready reference:- "30. Employment of other officers and servants.-(l) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, a committee may, and if so required by the State Government shall, employ other officers and servants and may assign to such officers and servants such remuneration as it may think fit, and may suspend, remove, dismiss or otherwise punish any officer or servant so appointed. Provided that no person who is member of a Committee shall be employed by a Committee during the tenure of his term and for a period of twelve months thereafter." Further the petitioner's counsel referred to Section 4 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officers) Act, 1931, which lays down the powers of the Executive Officers. Section 4(a) and Section 4(b) (i) of the (Punjab Municipal Executive Officer) Act, 1931, are reproduced below:- "4. Power of the Executive Officer.-ln a Municipality or notified area as the case may be in which an Executive Officer has been appointed- (a) the executive power for the purpose of carrying on the administration of the Municipality or notified area as the case may be, shall subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made under this Act, or under the Municipal Act, vest in the Executive Officer: (b) the powers conferred and duties imposed upon, the functions vested in, and the objections to be tendered and notice given to the committee under the sections of the Municipal Act mentioned in Schedule I, shall not be exercised or performed by, vested in, or be tendered or given to the Committee, but may be exercised or shall be performed by, or shall vest in, or shall be tendered or given to the Executive Officer, provided that- (i) the power conferred by Section 19 of the Municipal Act shall not be exercised by the Executive Officer and may be exercised by the committee in respect of the appointment of any officer or servant of the committee to a post for which the monthly remuneration exceeds Rs. 25, and in respect of the power of removal or dismissal of any officer or servant whose monthly remuneration exceeds Rs. 45 provided that the Executive Officer shall dismiss an employee if required by the committee to do so."
(3.) In view of Section 4(b) (i) quoted above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to suspend an employee vested in the Executive Officer only if the employee's remuneration did not exceed Rs. 45/- per mensum and since the petitioner's emoluments were much more than that, the order, Annexure P-2, was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. He drew my attention to a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Hari Chand v. Sh. D.R. Bawa & another, 1977 P.L.J. 365 .;