Nathi Ram vs State of Haryana

B.R. Tuli, J.—Nathi Ram Petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee, Hodal, in 1964. He was elected as the President of the Committee on 28th August 1964 and his name as President was duly notified in the Official Gazette dated 25th September, 1964. Fresh election for the office of President took place on 22nd September, 1967 and one Siri Chand Aggarwal was elected as President and Ram Lal as the Vice President of the Committee. A notice dated 24th February, 1968 along with a statement of allegations Anncxure ''A'' to the writ petition) was issued by the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Local Government Department, to the petitioner under Sections 22 and 16 (1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, asking him to show cause why he should not be removed from the membership of the Municipal Committee Hodal, and further disqualified for a period of five years. The statement of allegation was as under:

Shri Nathi Ram, Ex-President, Municipal Committee Hodal, called a meeting on 22nd September, 1967, for the purpose of electing the President of the Municipal Committee, Hodal. The ballot papers were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, to the Municipal Committee in time for holding the said election. At the time of the meeting Shri Nathi Ram made away with the ballot papers after taking them from the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Hodal, and the proceedings of the meeting were thus stopped. While doing so he act d in a very irresponsible manner and abused his position flagrantly and delayed the election proceedings. He has rendered himself liable for action under Sections 22 and 16 of of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

To this notice the petitioner submitted his explanation and it has now been stated in the return filed on behalf of the respondent that the impugned action was not taken on the basis of the notice issued to the petitioner on 24th February, 1968. The petitioner has also stated in his petition that on or about 25/26th March, 1968, he appeared before Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Assistant Secretary, Local Government, Haryana. Chandigarh, and explained to him verbally the whole position as already stated in his explanation and thereupon Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma told him that in view of his explanation which was found to be correct the proceedings initiated against him for his removal and disqualification stood dropped. This averment in the petition has been denied by the respondent in the return as no note is there on the file to this effect.

The petitioner received notice dated 10th May, 1968 from the Deputy Director (R), Urban Local Bodies, Rohtak, issued by him u/s 50 of the Municipal Act requiring the petitioner to show cause within twenty-one days as to why he should not be required to make good the loss of Rs. 141. 61 to the municipal fund. Thereafter in the third week of August, 1968 the petitioner received order dated 7th August, 1968 (Annexure ''D'' to the writ petition) removing him from the membership of the Committee with immediate effect and further disqualifying him for election for a period of three years from the date of the publication of the order in the Official Gazette. This order was passed under Sections 16(l)(e) and 16(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of that order.

This petition must succeed on the short ground that the procedure prescribed u/s 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act has not been followed. Before action is taken for removing a member of the Municipal Committee, he has to be notified the reasons for his proposed removal and has to be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing. The respondent has admitted that this order was not passed in pursuance of the notice dated 24th February, 1968 but was passed as a result of an enquiry into a complaint which had been received later on. No particulars of the complaint had been stated in the written statement but from the file which has been produced before me I find that Siri Chand Aggarwal had sent a compaint to Shri Khurshid Ahmad on 29th June, 1968, on which there is an order of the Minister reading as under:-"An immediate enquiry should be held into this complaint and a report submitted to me at the earliest." The order is dated 2nd August, 1968. There is a copy of a letter on the file dated 11th July, 1968 forwarding the complaint of Shri Siri Chand Aggarwal to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, for holding immediate enquiry into the matter and for the submission of the report thereafter to the Government within ten days. It is not clear what action was taken by the Deputy Commissioner but it appears that the Assistant Secretary to Government, Haryana, Local Government Department, held the enquiry on 22nd July, 1968. He seems to have recorded the statements of certain persons but did not associate the petitioner with that enquiry nor did he give him any chance of cross-examining the persons whose statements were recorded by him or of producing his defence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the said Assistant Secretary. There is no report of the Assistant Secretary on the record which has been produced before me on the basis of which the Government came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. It is thus clear that there is no basis for the impugned order having been passed as no notice was issued to the petitioner communicating to him the allegations or the charges against him nor was any opportunity afforded to him to submit his explanation. The enquiry was held against the petitioner in his absence and he was given no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses or of producing defence. The enquiry report is not on the record either. It is, therefore, not known how the Government considered the charges proved against him. The impugned order dated 7th August, 1938, removing the petitioner from the membership of the Municipal Committee, Hodal, and disqualifying him from standing for election for a further period of three years, is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 7th August, 1968 is hereby quashed. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/-.