Madan Lal vs The State of Haryana and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—The petitioner was elected as a Vice-President of the Market Committee. Ellenabad, tehsil Sirsa, district Hissar. He was served with a Show. Cause Notice u/s 15 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) to give his explanation regarding matters contained in the notice The allegations levelled were : (i) that he had summoned a meeting of the Market Committee even though he had not been empowered by the Chairman in that behalf; (ii) that the Firm of which he was a partner did not furnish information in form ''M'' to the Committee ; and (iii) that he wrongly adjourned the meeting on the ground that there was no quorum whereas in fact eight members which constituted the Firm attended the meeting The Government considered the explanation given by the petitioner and vide its order dated 10th of August, 1972, ordered the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Market Committee, Ellenabad.

The petition appears to have been admitted because orders of the Government dated 10th of August, 1972, was not a speaking order. When the case came up for arguments yesterday, I directed the learned counsel for the State to produce the file in which the explanation tendered by the petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice served upon him had been considered. This file has been produced today. The discussion on the file shows that petitioner had been rightly exonerated of the charge relating to the non-furnishing of information in form ''M'' by his Firm, but he was held guilty of having convened a meeting without authority and also for having adjourned it on the plea that quorum was not complete whereas in fact the requisite quorum was there. Since the findings given by the Government were not mentioned in the order of removal, I allowed the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance arguments relating to the grounds on which the petitioner had been removed from membership. He has drawn my attention to Annexure ''C'' which is an order dated 30th September, 1971, passed by Shri Asa Ram, Chairman of the Market Committee. By this order, he delegated all the powers and functions in favour of the petitioner. In the face of this document, it could not be said that the petitioner was incompetent to call a meeting of the Committee.

The other ground upon which the order of petitioner''s removal from membership has been passed also appears to be quite insufficient for the action which has been taken against the petitioner. Section 15 of the Act runs as follows:

The State Government may by notification remove any member if, in its opinion, he has been guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty or has lost the qualification on the strength of which he was appointed :

Provided that before the State Government notify the removal of a member under this section, the reasons for his proposed removal shall be communicated to the member concerned and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.

A member of the Committee can be removed from membership if he is guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty. It has no where been alleged that the petitioner failed to perform any duly cast on him by the statute. So, the action against him could only be taken on the ground that he was guilty of some misconduct. The word "misconduct" is defined in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as follows:

(1) Bad management; mismanagement, malfeasance:

(2) Improper conduct (in the sense of ''adultery'') Instances of misconduct.

Persons who are elected as office-bearers of statutory corporations like the Market Committee have a vested right. So long as they perform their duties honestly they cannot be removed from office on the ground that they have not conducted the meetings of the Committee as efficiently as a person well versed in this art would have conducted. In the matter of convening of meetings and their adjourments, the Presiding Officers have to be given some latitude and unless and until it is shown that a meeting is wrongly adjourned for some undesirable motive, it cannot be said that the Presiding Officer while adjourning the meeting committed an act of misconduct. In the return filed on behalf of the Government, it has been alleged that seven members formed a valid quorum for the meeting and the adjournment of the meeting on the basis of lack of quorum was wrongful. It is not disputed that presence of seven members was enough to have a proper meeting under the rules. The petitioner instead of adjourning it on the ground that there was no proper quorum, could have adjourned the meeting on some other pretext. The record does not show that any of the members present in the meeting protested that some business which was on the agenda should have been transacted in that meeting nor has it been alleged that the petitioner has gained some material or other advantage by adjourning that meeting. It is stated in the petition that the minute-books are usually recorded by the Secretary. Under these circumstances, the adjournment granted by the petitioner may not be regarded as appropriate but certainly it cannot be said to constitute an act of misconduct. In my considered opinion, the only ground which survived and on the basis of which the petitioner has been removed from membership of the Committee, is not a ground on the basis of which action u/s 15 of the Act could be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has also made some allegations of mala fides against Chaudhry Brij Lal, Member of Legislative Assembly, Dabwali, district Hissar. Since I have held that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the basis of section 15 of the Act, I deem it unnecessary to go into these allegations.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. There would, however, be no order as to costs.