RAM PIARI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PATHANKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipal Committee, Pa-thankot, managed the Municipal Board Primary Girls' School at Pathankot. The Headmistress of this institution migrated to Pakistan on the partition of the country in 1947. Raksha Devi was informally given the charge of the school as Headmistress. She had Joined the school in April 1942 on being confirmed in S. V. Grade. She continued to act as Headmistress till 1950 but she was never officially appointed to this post nor was she ever confirmed. The Municipal Committee advertised the post of Headmistress on 2-12-1949 and then on 31-1-1950. Raksha Devi also applied for the post. The Municipal Committee by resolution 7(5) passed on 17-6-1950, appointed Ram Piari as Headmistress in place of R. Bhag Mal who had migrated to Pakistan. About a year later Ram Piari was confirmed in her post by resolution No. 36 of 25-9-1951. Raksha Devi made representations against the appointment of Ram Piari. Ultimately on 4-9-1953 and then on 9-4-1954, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the Municipal Committee to consider her case and by resolution No. 13 of 29-41954, the Municipal Committee appointed Raksha Devi as Headmistress and Bam Piari was appointed Second Mistress. By letter dated 18-8-1954, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, wrote to say that as legitimate rights of Raksha Devi had been ignored in 1950-51 she should act as Head-mistress and Ram Piari should work as a school mistress. Thereupon Ram Piari filed the present suit against the Municipal Committee and Raksha Devi for the relief of a permanent injunction that the resolution of the Committee dated 29-4-1954, & the order dated 18-8-1954, should not be given effect to and Raksha Devi should not work as Headmistress of the School. This relief was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to explain her position to the Municipal Committee. The suit was contested by the Municipal Committee as well as Raksha Devi. The trial Court held that Ram Piari could not be demoted and reduced in rank without following the procedure regarding punishment of civil servants and, therefore, the resolution dated 29-4-1954, was invalid as she was not given any opportunity to explain her case. On these findings the suit was decreed. Raksha Devi appealed. The learned Senior Sub-Judge held that the revision of Ram Piari did not amount to her dismissal as contemplated in Sections 39 and 41, Punjab Municipal Act and the rules framed under the Act. He also held that Article 311 of the Constitution did not apply. In his opinion the resolution of 29-4-1954, was intended to restore the legitimate rights of Raksha Devi and that there was no injustice involved in giving effect to the resolution. On these findings the appeal was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that in substance the resolution of 29-4-1954, had the effect of dismissing her from the post of Headmistress and of appointing her as a second school mistress and that she could not be dismissed without being afforded reasonable opportunity to show cause against her dismissal as provided in the Punjab Civil Services Rules. In the alternative it was urged that the principles of natural Justice demanded that she should not have been dismissed without being afforded an opportunity to explain her case to the Municipal Committee. It was conceded before me, and rightly conceded, that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not applicable to a Municipal employee.

(3.) There can be no doubt that by the resolution of 29-4-1954, Ram Piari was reduced from the rank of Headmistress to that of second school mistress. She was thus demoted or reduced in rank. It may be said that this is a composite order removing her from the position formerly held by her and appointing her to a position of school mistress which is of lower grade. It has been held by both the lower Courts that the resolution in question amounted to reduction in Ram Piari's rank. Now, whatever its exact nature in substance, the term "reduction in rank" is a term well known to the legislature and has been used as distinct from an order of removal or dismissal. In Article 311 (1) of the Constitution only terms "removal" and "dismissal", are mentioned while in Article 311 (2) the terms "removal", "dismissal" and "reduction in rank" are separately used. Similarly this term is separately used in the Civil Services Rules. I am, therefore, of the opinion that for the purposes of this case rules governing "reduction in rank" are to be seen and the rules relating to dismissal or removal will not be of any assistance.