Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, Surjit Singh Sud, was practising as an Advocate at Jullundur on June 4, 1971, when a notification appointing him as Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Jullundur, was published. He assumed charge of his office on June 7, 1971. By another notification dated June 14, 1971, he was allowed a fixed salary of Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem plus dearness pay/allowances at Government rates. His appointment was for a period of three years with effect from the date he assumed charge of the office as a wholes -time Chairman with the condition that he would give up his practice as an Advocate. The Petitioner came to know on August 22, 1971, from some news item published in the daily news -papers that orders for his removal from the office of Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jullundur, had been passed. He immediately rushed to this Court with this petition in order to obtain an order staying the publication of the notification removing him from his office. Notice of motion returnable for September 8, 1971, was issued by the Motion Bench on August 24, 1971, and the notification and implementation of the impugned order and termination of the service of the Petitioner were stayed till further orders. On September 8, 1971, the petition was adjourned to the following day at the request of the Senior Deputy Advocate General for Respondent 1 and was admitted on September 9, 1971.
(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by Respondent 1, the State of Punjab, to which a replication has also been filed by the Petitioner. Respondent 2 to the petition is Shri Gurdial Saini, Ex M.L.A. Congress (R), against whom it has been alleged that he maneuvered the removal of the Petitioner with the Government. Respondent 2 has not chosen to file any return or affidavit controverting those allegations. The record has been produced by Respondent 1 as directed by the Motion Bench which shows that an order for the removal of the Petitioner from his office of Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jullundur, was in fact passed on August 19, 1971, by the Governor of Punjab after obtaining the advice of the Legal Remembrancer and the Advocate -General. This action was taken on a letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, and some complaints sent by Shri Manmohan Kalia, ex -Minister of Punjab belonging to Jan Sangh party and Respondent 2. The Petitioner was not given any notice to show cause why he should not be removed from his office and the action was taken by the State Government entirely on its own satisfaction as to the un -suitability of the Petitioner to continue in his office.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, in the first instance, that the Chairman of an improvement trust is an officer of the trust and is governed by the Rules for the Employment, Suspension, Removal and Conduct of Officers and Servants of the Trust, 1945 (hereinafter called the Rules) which were published vide notification dated September 4, 1945, and, therefore, the Petitioner could not be removed from his office except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 19, which procedure was admittedly not followed. These Rules were framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 73 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) and the point for determination is whether these rules apply to the chairman of an improvement trust or only apply to its officers and servants employed by itself. According to Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the chairman of a trust is to be appointed by the State Government by notification for a term not exceeding three years as the State Government may fix in that behalf but is liable to removal from office by the State Government at any time. He is also eligible for reappointment. He is to preside at every meeting of the trust if he is present (Section 12(1)(c). Sections 17 to 20 of the Act have a direct bearing on the point for determination and are reproduced below: 17. Subject to such rules as the State Government may make under Clause (iii) of Section 73 the trust may from time to time employ such servants as it may deem necessary and proper to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act and may assign to such servants such pay as it may deem fit. 18. Subject to the provisions of Section 17 and to any rules for the time being in force, the power of appointing, promoting and granting leave to officers and servants of the trust, and reducing, suspending or dismissing them for misconduct, and dispensing with their services for any reason other than misconduct, shall be vested - (i)in the case of officers and servants whose maximum monthly salary does not exceed one hundred rupees -in the chairman, and (ii) in other case -in the trust: Provided that any officer or servant, in receipt of a minimum monthly salary exceeding fifty rupees who is reduced, suspended or dismissed by the chairman may appeal to the trust, whose decision shall be final. 19. The chairman shall exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the trust; and, subject to the foregoing sections, shall dispose of all questions relating to the service of the said officers and servants and their pay, privileges and allowances. 20(1) The chairman may, by general or special order in writing, delegate to any officer of the trust any of the chairman's powers, duties or functions under this Act or any rule made thereunder except those conferred or imposed upon or vested in him by Sections 12, 15, 21, 46 and 96, respectively. (2) The exercise or discharge by any officer of any powers, duties or functions delegated to him under Sub -section (1) shall be subject to such conditions and limitations (if any) as may be prescribed in the said order, and also to control and revision by the chairman, or the trust. It is also appropriate to reproduce Section 73(1)(iii) of the Act, as it has been specifically mentioned in Section 17. This section reads as under: 73(1) In addition to the power conferred by Section 64, the State Government may make rules consistent with this Act and applicable to all trusts or any trust - (i) * * * * * * (ii) * * * * * * (iii) as to the employment, payment, suspension and removal of officers and servants of the trust, and the conduct of such officers and servants ; * * * * * * Reading Sections 17 and 73(1)(iii) together, it irresistibly follows that the Rules, for the framing of which power has been vested in the State Government, relate to the officers and servants who can be employed by the trust itself and not to the chairman and trustees who are appointed by the Government or the Municipal Committee concerned. It may be noted here that under Section 4 of the Act, three out of the seven trustees of every trust are to be members of the Municipal Committee of the town and are to be elected by that Committee. It is only on the failure of the Municipal Committee concerned to elect a person to be a trustee that the State Government has the power to appoint a member of that Committee to be a trustee. Section 18 makes the position further clear because the power of appointing, promoting and granting leave to officers and servants of the trust and reducing, suspending or dismissing them for misconduct, and dispensing with their services for any reason other than misconduct, vests in the chairman of the trust in case of officers and servants whose maximum monthly salary does not exceed one hundred rupees and. in other cases in the trust. Under Section 19, the chairman has been given the power of supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the trust. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the trust cannot appoint, dismiss, suspend or dispense with the services of a chairman for any reason whatsoever. The power of appointment and removal of a chairman has been expressly vested in the State Government and, therefore, it cannot be said that, while exercising that power, the State Government is bound by the Rules framed under Section 73(1)(iii) of the Act. If that were so, the provision would have been made in the Act itself rather than in the Rules framed for the officers and servants to be employed by the trust just as the provision has been made in Section 10 of the Act for the removal of trustees. I cannot persuade myself to hold that the Act intended that the chairman of the trust would be governed by the Rules. The Rules expressly make provision for the appointment of Secretary, Land Acquisition Officer, Town Planner, Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Assistant Town Planner, Senior Draftsman, Junior Draftsman, Overseer and Accountant in rules 1 to 10. In every one of these rules it is stated that the appointment is to be made by the trust. Rules 12 to 19 refer to the procedure to be followed while suspending, dismissing or removing an officer or servant of the trust for which provision is made in Section 18 of the Act, under which the trust or the chairman has the power to suspend, dismiss or remove an officer or servant of the trust according to the amount of his monthly salary at that time. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that Section 17 does not talk of officers but only talks of servants to which, however, I attach no importance because in Sections 18 and 19 reference is made to both servants and officers and it cannot be denied that servant is a generic term which includes all sorts of employees -officers, ministerial or menial. In the Police Rules, even constables are referred to as officers. The mere absence of the word "officer" in Section 17 cannot, therefore, be taken to mean that the Rules framed under Section 73(1)(iii) also apply to the chairman of a trust, he being one of the officers of the trust. The Secretary, Town Planner, and other employees for whom provision is specifically made in Rules 1 to 10 can be termed more appropriately as officers rather than as members of the ministerial or menial establishment which alone, according to the learned Counsel, are covered by the word "servant". Section 18, however, makes it clear that the Rules intended to be framed under Section 73(1)(iii) were to cover all officers and servants of the trust. It is also stressed by the learned Counsel that if the Rules were not intended to apply to the chairman of a trust, Rule 11B would not have found a place therein. This rule reads as under: 11B. The Chairman of a Trust shall retire on his attaining the age of 55 years, unless some stipulation requires it to happen earlier by cessation of his term of office, or unless the Government allows him to continue in office beyond the age of 55. Under this rule, there is a note reading as under: Note. -This rule does not in any way affect the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. In my opinion, there was no necessity of including this rule in the Rules but the note underneath it makes it absolutely clear that the statutory power under Section 5 of the Act for the appointment and removal of the chairman has not at all been affected. Rule 20 further makes it clear that the Rules were intended to apply only to the officers or servants employed by the trust.;