R.S. Saini vs State of Punjab and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner who was the President of the Municipal Council, Nangal, is aggrieved by the order dated June 26, 1998 by which he has been ordered to be removed from the office. He prays that the order passed by the Government, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, be quashed. A few facts may be noticed.

On November 20, 1994, the petitioner was elected as a Member of the Municipal Council, Nangal. On January 17, 1996, he was elected as President of the Municipal Council. On October 14, 1997, the petitioner was served with a notice under Sections 16(l)(e) and 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. He was asked to show cause as to why he be not removed from the Presidentship and the Membership of the Council. Alongwith, a list of charges was enclosed. There were as many as 11 charges. A few days later, on November 4, 1997, the petitioner was served with another show cause notice. Three more charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letters dated November 8, 1997 and November 23, 1997. Thereafter, he submitted written arguments on December 26, 1997. On June 26, 1998, the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 respectively. The allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 to the effect that he was inimical towards him and that the order had been passed at his behest, have been denied.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr. S.C. Pathela, counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions. Firstly, the counsel has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab without considering the reply to the show cause notices submitted by him. Secondly, it has been contended that the order is violative of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had not been afforded a personal hearing. Thirdly, the counsel has contended that the whole action is vitiated by the malafides of respondent No. 4, the Minister for Food & Supplies, Punjab. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents.

The three questions arise for consideration are :-

(i) Has the competent authority failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the two show cause notices ?

(ii) Is the order violative of the principles of natural justice?

(iii) Is the order vitiated by the malafides of respondent No. 4.?

Reg (i)

Admittedly, 14 charges had been levelled against the petitioner. After consideration of the reply, the competent authority has found that only five charges have been proved. It has been held that out of eleven allegations in the first notice, those at Nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 have been proved. In case of the second show cause notice, only one of the allegations has been held to have been proved. Still further, a perusal of the order indicates that the competent authority has not only noticed the allegations but also the reply to each of the allegations as submitted by the petitioner. Besides that, in case of certain charges with regard to which evidence had been recorded, the officer has duly noticed the oral testimony as well. It is only after a thorough consideration of the pleas raised by the petitioner and the documentary or other evidence on record that the findings have been recorded. In fact, it is a refreshingly detailed order in which proper reasons have been recorded.

Mr. Pathela contended that the authority has not applied its mind. He attempted to demonstrate this by contending that one of the charges levelled against the petitioner related to the abrupt postponement of a continuing meeting. Actually, charge No. 3 against the petitioner was he had exceeded his powers in illegally adjourning the meeting of the Municipal Council which was being peacefully held on June 16, 1997. Learned counsel contends that in view of the provisions of bye-laws 15, the action was strictly legal. Counsel complains that the authority has failed to consider the plea raised by the petitioner.

On a perusal of the order, we are satisfied that it is not so. Bye-law 15 undoubtedly provides that "if the meeting refuses to obey the ruling of the chairman on any matter, he may adjourn it at once....." However, there is nothing on record to indicate that bye-law 15 was even remotely applicable. In fact, on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that bye law 15 did not exist so far as the Municipal Council Nangal is concerned as it governed the proceedings of Notified Area Committee, Nangal, and not those of the Municipal Council. In this situation, it cannot be said that the authority had erred in ignoring a provision which had no application.

After examination of the matter, we find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been duly considered. The fact that out of 14 charges, nine have been dropped, is by itself indicative of an objective consideration of the entire case.

Accordingly, the first question is answered against the petitioner. It is held that the pleas raised by the petitioner had been duly considered.

Reg(ii)

It is contended that the petitioner had not been granted a personal hearing. Thus, the order was violative of the principles of natural justice.

Even this contention cannot be accepted. In paragraph 4 of the order, it has been specifically observed that the petitioner "had been heard at length personally and also through his counsel". It is also the admitted position that written arguments had been filed by the petitioner. In this situation, it cannot be said that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact, a show cause notice had been issued. The petitioner had submitted his reply. Thereafter, oral hearing was given. Even counsel was heard. Written arguments were filed. Principles of natural justice did not require anything beyond this.

As a result, even the second question is answered against the petitioner.

Reg. (iii)

Lastly, it has been contended that the whole action against the petitioner was vitiated by the mala fides of respondent No. 4. Mr. Pathela has submitted that the petitioner had contested the election as an independent candidate. Respondent No. 4 is a Minister in the Government being run by the Akalis and the BJP. He was opposed to the petitioner. As a result, he managed to have the petitioner removed from the office of President of the Municipal Council.

The allegations made by the petitioner have been specifically denied by the fourth respondent. He has filed an affidavit in which it has been averred that he has represented the Nangal Constituency on more than one occasion. As a member of the Legislative Assembly, he is an ex-officio member of the Municipal Committee as also that of the Managing Committee of the Shivalik Model School, Nangal. However, the petitioner does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the council. In fact, the respondent has pointed out that out of 16 elected members, 10 are against the petitioner. Being in minority, he is unable to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office of the president. The respondent alleges that baseless allegations have been levelled. He has denied the allegations and averred that he had "no role to play in respect of the issuance of the show cause notice or at any subsequent stage".

The petitioner has filed a replication controverting the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, he has not filed any replication to the reply filed by respondent No. 4. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it has been averred that respondent No. 4 had been taking steps for his removal on the ground that he (the petitioner) has also been supporting the members belonging to party other than the BJP also. Specific reference has been made to a Question- Answer which is said to have been published in a Hindi Newspaper "Shivalik Patrika".

The short question that arises is - Was respondent No. 4 actuated by extraneous considerations against the petitioner?

Mr. Pathela learned counsel has not suggested that there was any direct conflict of interest between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. No specific instance which may indicate that respondent No. 4 had a reason to be biased against the petitioner has been pointed out. It is undoubtedly correct that according to the newspaper report, respondent No. 4 had been asked that earlier the BJP had supported Ashok Nayyar and then the petitioner-was the party "again taking steps to change the President? His answers was - "When the BJP supported Nayyar and Saini, both were independent candidates, but thereafter they joined the other party and then BJP has to withdraw its support". It appears that respondent No. 4 was very candid and fortnight in admitting that the party may not support the petitioner. From this, we cannot draw an inference of hostility or that the charges were levelled against the petitioner at the instance of the fourth respondent. In fact, even the learned counsel for the petitioner has not suggested that respondent No. 3 was under the influence of respondent No. 4. That being so, the plea of malafides cannot be sustained.

We are unable to hold that the order was passed either under the influence or at the asking of respondent No. 4.

Accordingly, the third question is also answered against the petitioner.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. Consequently, it is dismissed. As a result, even the interim order passed by us on July 7, 1998, by which the operation of the impugned order has been stayed, shall stand vacated. In the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.