Ram Chand vs The State of Punjab and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition filed by Ram Chand under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order dated 10th April, 1964 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur, District. Kangra (the Prescribed Authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The elections to the Gram Panchayat of village Harsar, District Kangra, were held on 29th December, 1933 and the petitioner and Ram Lal Sharma and Jaswant Singh, respondents 4 and 5, were the contestants for the office of Sarpanch. Respondent No 4 secured 298 votes as against 264 and 80 by the petitioner and respondent No. 5, respectively. As result, he was declared elected as Sarpanch. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an election petition challenging this election on the ground that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for election for the office of Sarpanch in as much as he was a Government employee, whose services had been terminated by the Government in the year 1951 for inefficiency and bad reputation for honesty. Hi was, therefore, disqualified for appointment in public service and by virtue of the provisions of section 6 (5) (f) of the Act, he could not stand for election. This election petition was tried by respondent No. 3 and was dismissed vide the impugned order. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

The relevant provisions of section 6 (5) (f) of the Act are as follows:

S. 6.

* * *

(5) No person, who is not a Member of the Sabha and who-

* * * *

(f) has been notified as disqualified for appointment in public service, except on medical grounds,

* * * *

shall be entitled to stand for election as or continue to be a Sarpanch or Panch.

Respondent No. 4 was an Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department of Punjab Government and, according to the petitioner, he had been dismissed from Government service on account of inefficiency and bad reputation for honesty. Respondent No. 3 asked the office of the Director of the Civil Supplies Department, Punjab, to produce the personal file and service book of respondent No. 4 together with any record that might be available relating to his removal or dismissal from the Department. The Record-Keeper was, however, able to produce only his service book, the other relevant records having been destroyed by the Department, From a perusal of the service book it transpired that he was appointed Food-grains Sub-Inspector on the forenoon of December 1948 and that his services were terminated for inefficiency and bad reputation for honesty on the afternoon of July 14, 1951. The question for decision, therefore, was whether he had been notified as disqualified for appointment in public service as required by section 6(5) (f) mentioned above. In view of the decision of this Court in Gulab Singh v. Pritam Singh1, respondent No. 3 came to the conclusion that there was no necessity for any gazette notification to be published in regard to the termination of the services of respondent No. 4. The Prescribed Authority then referred to the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, which were framed after the termination of the services of respondent No. 4 and stated that when the services of a Government servant were dispensed with, this termination could come under one of the three categories-(a) removal which did not disqualify from future employment, (b) dismissal which ordinarily disqualified from future employment and (c) termination of employment not amounting to removal or dismissal within the meaning; of (a) and (b). Since the services of respondent No. 4 were terminated for inefficiency and bed reputation for honesty, according to respondent No. 3 this termination was presumably by way of punishment. As the removal mentioned in (a) above was also one of the prescribed modes of punishment, such a possibility could not be ruled out in the case of respondent No. 4 as well. Moreover, the onus of proving that respondent No. 4 was disqualified for appointment in public service and, as such, was not qualified to contest the office of Sarpach lay on the petitioner and this, according to the Prescribed Authority, he hid not satisfactorily discharged.

On these grounds the election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

It was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if respondent No. 4 had been dismissed from Government service for inefficiency and bad reputation for honesty, then the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution would be attracted and he should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position with regard to these charges. If such an opportunity was not given in the case of respondent No. 4, then it could not be held that he wis dismissed from service and that being so, the provisions of section 6 (5) (f) would not come into play. The petitioner has not been able to establish that any enquiry was held against respondent No. 4 and he was afforded an opportunity to explain his position. On the other hand, the case of respondent No. 4 is that his services had been terminated under the terms of his appointment as he was only a temporary employee. He was neither dismissed nor removed from service, as was being alleged by the petitioner No notice was ever given by the Government to afford him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be dismissed No charge-sheet was ever framed against him and no enquiry was ever held in his case. He produced a copy of the order of the Government (annexure R-l), the relevant portion of which reads thus -

Under the terms of their temporary appointment in the Civil Supplies Department, services of the following officials are hereby terminated... the date they are relieved :-

(i) Shri Jagdish Mittar, Foodgrains Inspector, Kulu.

(ii) Shri Ram Lal, Foodgrains Inspector, J.M. Road.

(iii) Chuni Lal, Foodgrains, Sub-Inspector, Manali.

(iv) Shri Man Singh, Foodgrains, Sub-Inspector, Bhota.

(Sd.) Diwan Singh, D. F. S. 2nd July, 1951.

He has also produced a certificate from the Under Secretary (Administration), Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, to the effect that he worked in the Office of the District Food Controller, Dharamsala as Foodgrains Sub Inspector/Foodgrains Inspector in a substantive temporary capacity for the period commencing from 14th December, 1948 to 14h July, 1951. He further filed the affidavit of one Jagdish Mittar (mentioned in annexure R. 1), whose services had also been terminated along with respondent No. 4, to the effect that he and the other persons mentioned in annexure R. 1 were not given any show-cause notice and no charges were framed and no enquiry was held against them and that their services were terminated, because they were temporary employees of the Department. All these documents show that respondent No. 4 was merely a temporary employee in the Civil Supplies Department and his services were terminated without any charges having been framed and an enquiry held against him. Under these circumstances, the provisions of section 6(5)(i) arc not attracted and the impugned order is not open to challenge

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.