- (1.) The petitioner who was in the employment of the respondent-Municipal Committee as a Secretary, impugns its order dated 9th of September, 1976 (Annexure P-5) releving him of that job. This order reads as following :- "In compliance of Memorandum No. DLC (MSC)-76/3505, dated 8th September, 1976, from the Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, Shri kaur Chand working as Secretary, Municipal Committee, Kotfatta, is hereby relieved from his duties forthwith". A copy of this order was endorsed to the petitioner in the following terms:- " A copy of the above order is forwarded to Sh. Kaur Chand son of L. Bachna Mal, Kotfatta, for necessary compliance. He is further directed to hand over the charge to Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Octroi Moharrir, immediately failing which a case for misappropriation will be registered against him with the police". According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither this order has been passed by the Municipal Committee of its own nor has it been passed under any provision of law and thus is totally without jurisdiction. The Municipal Committee has not chosen to contest this petition and has filed no written statement. However, on behalf of the state authorities, this is what has been said in paragraph 10 of its return :- "Para No. 10 of the petition is admitted to the extent it reproduces the provisions of law. The rules relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to him. His case for bringing him into the Municipal service as envisaged by rule 5 of the Rules was considered by the competent authority and he was found unfit to become a member of Municipal service because of bad record. So, he cannot take advantage of new service rules and his case is to be considered under Section 38(2) of the Act and the Committee is competent to retire him without any notice". A brief background regarding the whole case is given below so that the clear picture of the facts of this case in its right perspective emerges for adequate appreciation of the case :- As the petitioner was inefficient, the Committee, vide its resolution No. 14 dated 9.10.1975, retired him in public interest but the former President who was illiterate and is reported to be a rubber stamp in the hands of the petitioner, did not implement the resolution of the Committee. The petitioner moved the Sub Divisional Officer Bhatinda, against the resolution and got a stay order from Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhatinda. 'Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhatinda, conducted enquiry into the charges of illegal possession of municipal land, use of municipal water, wrong drawal of T.A., intentional loss of municipal record and burning of record etc. 'The petitioner was placed under suspension twice for burning the official record. The Executive Magistrate, Bhatinda, remarked that the petitioner was corrupt, dishonest and inefficient. The report of Executive Magistrate, Bhatinda was submitted to Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, who approved the findings of the Executive Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhatinda, was asked to vacate the stay order granted by him against the retirement of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Bhatinda, vacated the stay order on 30.1.1976. The Committee again, vide its resolution No. 14 dated 20.5.1976, unanimously confirmed the previous resolution No. 14 dated 1.10.1975 that the retirement of the petitioner was legal and in accordance with the Government policy to get rid of corrupt and inefficient employees. The Deputy Director stayed the operation of this resolution No. 14 dated 20.5.1976 on the wrong ground that posts of the Secretaries had been provincialized and the Committee was not competent to retire the petitioner. The petitioner is not a member of the constituted Municipal Service and the Committee is competent to take any action against him. Full facts based on Audit reports and Enquiry reports of responsible officers of the district prove that the petitioner is inefficient and deserved to be retired and has rightly been retired from service". A bare reading of this return filed by the respondent authorities, discloses that it is the Municipal Committee who is competent to deal with the petitioner, i.e. "may retire or discharge him from service." As is indicated in the impugned order itself, it has been passed in compliance with certain direction or communication from the Director, Local Government Punjab, Chandigarh. It is thus patent that Annexure P-5 is not the result of an independent decision of the Municipal Committee. Under what provision of Law, the Director, Local Government could direct the relieving of the petitioner has not been shown by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities. He even now is not in a position to produce before me the said communication or direction of the Director, which has been referred to in the impugned order. Further, from the averments made in the return, which have been reproduced above, it is manifestly clear that the whole purpose of passing the order, Annexure P-5 is to punish the petitioner for various misconduct referred to in the return of the of respondent authorities. The averments of the petitioner that he became a member of the Municipal Service with the constitution of the said Service in terms of Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Act and is governed by the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975, have specifically been denied or refuted. It is only under these rules that a member of the Municipal Service can lawfully be retired. But it is the case of the respondent authorities that these Rules do not apply to the petitioner nor any thing is being pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents authorities to come to the conclusion as to under which rule or legal provision the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner. The impugned order can also not be upheld last and order of discharge under Section 45 of the Punjab Municipal Act as it has not been preceded by any notice, much less one month's notice as required by Sub-section (1) of the section. Thus, looking from any angle, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) cannot possibly be sustained. For the reasons recorded above, I allow the petition and set aside the impugned order (Annexure P-5) but with no order as to costs.;