- (1.) A meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee took place on June 20, 1960, for the election of the President and the Vice-President of the Committee. It was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil ). In consequence of the behaviour of the respondents in that meeting the appellant proceeded against each under Section 16 (1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act 3 of 1911), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by issuing a show-cause notice, annexure 'a' with each of the two petitions by the respondents, Bhagat Ram patanga and Om Parkash Agnihotri, on December 5, 1960, why action be not taken against the particular respondent under that provision. In the case of Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent, the show-cause notice read -- "it has been brought to the notice of the Government that on the 20th june, 1960, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Phagwara, convened a meeting of the newly elected members of the Municipal Committee, phagwara, after the elections of the Committee, held on the 17-10-1959 in order to administer oath of allegiance and to conduct the election of the President of the Committee to enable the new Committee to take over the charge. You also attended that meeting at the time of the election of the office of the President. You were supporter of the group headed by Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri, member of the Committee whose candidature was proposed for this office. During the course of the meeting when Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri became unruly and began to tear his clothes, beat his chest, and create a row, you managed to bring some outsiders in the Town Hall to cause disturbance at the meeting. Moreover you did not maintain decorum or care to obey the chair. By your aforesaid action you have flagrantly abused your position as a member of the Committee within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (e) of the punjab Municipal Act, 1911. I am directed to call upon you to show cause under proviso to Section 16 (1) (e) ibid, why you should not be removed from the membership of the Committee under Section 16 (1) (e)ibid. You should tender your explanation to the Deputy Commissioner, kapurthala, with an advance copy to Government together with copy (copies) of document (s), if any, so as to reach them within a period of twenty-one days from the date of despatch of this letter. In case no explanation is submitted by you within the stipulated period, it will be considered that you have no explanation to offer and Government may proceed ahead to notify your removal. " An exactly similar show-cause notice was served on Om Parkash Agnihotri respondent. In reply Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent in his letter of December 16, 1960, said -- "as to what happened in the meeting on the 20th June, 1960, is the subject-matter of a writ petition filed by the petitioner and five other Municipal commissioners. * * * * * * * * * it is in the fitness of things that when the matter is pending before the High Court of Punjab no action should be taken by the Government till the matter is decided by the High Court. As will be clear from the facts stated in paras Nos. 5 to 11 of the writ petition, the conduct of the petitioner (respondent Bhagat Ram patanga) was not at all blameworthy. On the other hand a great injustice was done to the petitioner and other five Municipal Commissioners who have filed the writ, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Phagwara who adopted illegal methods for converting 'the majority of Shri Om Parkash Agnihotri (respondent) into minority. The behaviour of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phagwara, was high-handed and absolutely unwarranted. The persons who came in the hall where the meeting was being held belonged to the party of the opposite group of Shri Bhagat Ram and they were made to sit in the room of the Executive Officer and had entered the meeting hall at the instance of the opposite party. They started manhandling shri Om Parkash Agnihotri (respondent) and one of them tore his shirt. The allegation that the petitioner did not maintain the decorum and that he did not obey the chair is totally denied. In fact he did not flout the authority of the chair but unfortunately the attitude of the chair was partial and one-sided. The provisions of Section 16 (1) (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act are not at all attracted in the present case. What happened in the meeting has nothing to do with the petitioner's flagrantly abusing his position as a member of the committee. " The reply, dated December 17, 1960, of Om Parkash Agnihotri respondent was word for word copy of the explanation rendered by Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent. The incident in the meeting of the Committee took place on June 20, 1960. Bhagat ram Patanga respondent filed his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on january 5, 1963. It appears that Bhagat Ram Patanga and five other members of the Committee filed a petition against the election of Bhag Ram as President of the phagwara Municipal Committee which was Civil Writ No. 1095 of 1960. That petition appears to have been filed before the show-cause notices were served on the respondents. It was, however, dismissed after the service of those notices on the respondents on the ground that it involved disputed matters of fact.
(2.) AFTER consideration of the explanation of Bhagat Ram Patanga respondent, the following order was made against him on September 11, 1962 -- "whereas the governor of Punjab after giving an opportunity to Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga, member. Municipal Committee, Phagwara of tendering an explanation under the proviso to Section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is satisfied that the said shri Bhagat Ram Patanga has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the aforesaid Committee: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 ibid, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to remove the said Shri Bhagat Ram Patanga from the membership of the municipal Committee, Phagwara, from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette and is further pleased to disqualify the said Shri Bhagat Ram patanga for a period of three years from the aforementioned date under Subsection (2) of Section 16 ibid. " exactly similar order was made on the same date with regard to Om Parkash Agnihotri. Each one of the two respondents filed a separate petition challenging the legality and validity of his removal from the membership of the Phagwara municipal Committee and his disqualification for three years from contesting election to the same Committee. The appellant, the State of Punjab, resisted both the petitions.
(3.) THE petitions of the respondents were heard by Grover J. , and by his order under appeal, of September 18, 1963, the learned Judge accepted the petitions quashing the order of the appellant in each case. It was urged before the learned judge that even if the allegations made against the respondents were to be accepted as correct, which were, however, emphatically denied and according to the counter version of the respondents it were the supporters of Bhagat Ram who had created trouble, and although such a conduct would be most condemnable and reprehensible, it would nevertheless not be covered by the expression 'has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the Committee'. It is on this consideration alone on the basis of which the learned Judge proceeded to come to the conclusion that the conduct of each one of the respondents in the meeting of the Phagwara Municipal Committee called in connection with the election of its president and Vice-President was not 'flagrant abuse of his position as a member of the Committee' by him, as the learned Judge was of the opinion that it is only in the discharge of his duty as member that if a person is guilty of flagrant abuse of his position that his case would be covered by Section 16 (1) (e) of the Act and that 'on the showing of the Government itself the orders made were plainly ultra vires the section even if it be assumed that they were passed bona fide, and that the grounds which led to the making of those orders were neither germane nor relevant to the provisions of Section 16 (1) (e) of the Act. Whatever misconduct was attributed to the petitioners (respondents) was not of such a nature as could have the remotest connection with the discharge of their duty as members of the committee and although lack of decorum and dignity and introducing incitement and unruly element in a solemn meeting of the Committee was much to be deprecated, if true, but that could not justify the removal of the petitioners (respondents) on the ground that they had flagrantly abused their position as members of the Committee. " The learned Judge sought support for his conclusion from the observations of Dulat J. , in the Full Bench case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 65 Pun LR 267 = (AIR 1963 Punj 280 (FBI) but, on facts, that was a case nothing parallel to the present cases, and the observations of Dulat J. in that case, concurred to by the other learned Judges do not support this conclusion of the learned Judge. So, the learned Judge proceeded to quash the orders of the appellant State Government removing each one of the respondents from the membership of the Phagwara Municipal Committee and disqualifying him from being elected to the same for a period of three years. This was on September 18, 1963.;