H.R.Sodhi, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur, through its Executive Officer, challenging the validity of the order of the Governor of Punjab passed on 2nd Aug., 1969, appended as Annexure E with the writ petition. By the impugned order, resolution No. 215, dated 26th April, 1968, passed by the Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur, abolishing the post of its Secretary and thereby relieving the incumbent thereof, was annulled by the State Government.
(2.) There have been complaints about the extravagance of expenditure and also delinquency in the matter of collection of revenue against the petitioner Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee (hereinafter described as the Committee) appointed a sub-committee on 25th Oct., 1967, to go into the matter of alleged extravagance and revenue collection. The members of the sub-committee did not attend the meeting proposed to be held on 24th Feb., 1968, but later on, in its meeting held on 24th April, 1968, it recommended that the post of the Secretary was superfluous and most of its work could be done by the Executive Officer. It was suggested that the said post be abolished and the incumbent of the office who has been impleaded as a respondent by the amended writ petition filed on 29th July, 1969. be relieved with immediate effect after bring given one months wages in lieu of notice. The recommendation further was that a whole-time accountant be appointed in place of the Secretary and in the meantime the charge of the accounts be handed over to the Head Clerk fill a whole-time accountant was appointed. The Committee passed a resolution No. 215 on 26th April, 1968, whereby it accepted the recommendations of the sub-committee and directed the Executive Officer to take charge from the Secretary and relieve him with immediate effect. The post of an accountant was ordered to be advertised in the grade of Rs. 116-8-180/10-250 It may be mentioned hat the scale of the Secretary was Rs. 150-10-300. The members of the Committee were equally divided on this issue but the proposal was carried by the casting vote of the President. It appears that the Secretary respondent being aggrieved by this resolution of the Committee made representations to the State Government on which a report of the Committee was called. The Executive Officer submitted his para-wise comments and a copy thereof had been filed as Annexure G with the explanation of the petitioner The Executive Officer in his comments stated that the petitioner had not even been confirmed as the Secretary and that the resolution of the Committee confirming him was got passed by him by keeping the members and the President of the Committee In dark. It Is no easy to believe all these facts but they, are not relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition In defence of the resolution abolishing the post of the Secretary, it was stated hat the Executive Officer could perform the duties of the Secretary and in his presence the post of the Secretary was superfluous The attention of the Government was Invited to a charge-sheet served on the Committee calling upon it to show cause as to why it should not be superseded wherein in was one of the charges that the Committee was guilty of unnecessary expenditure on administration. Instances of some Municipal Committees in the State of Punjab were cited where the Executive Officers were holding dual posts, namely his own and that of the Secretary. According to the explanation of the Executive Officer, as submitted to the State Government, only amalgamation of the two posts, namely those of the Secretary and the Executive Officer, had been done, and not that the post of the Secretary was abolished. This explanation runs counter to the resolution of the Committee itself, the language of which is most unambiguous and states in clear terms that the post of the Secretary was to be abolished.
(3.) The State Government did not find the explanation of the Executive Officer given on behalf of the Committee to be satisfactory and by the impugned order cancelled the resolution abolishing the post of the Secretary. The Committee being dissatisfied with this order of the Governor has come up in a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the said order be quashed. The validity of the order has been challenged by Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the Committee, on the following grounds:- (1) That the impugned order (Annexure E) does not give any reasons as to why the resolution of the Committee was being annulled; and (2) That there has been no abolition of the post of the Secretary which, in fact, has been amalgamated with that of the Executive Officer and that there was no law prohibiting the Committee from doing so. In the writ petition, one of the grounds taken was that no notice was issued to the Committee before the impugned order was passed but this point was not pursued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;