1968 (2) TMI 125 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification order under Section 49(2) without following due procedure.
2. Validity of delegation of powers to respondent No. 1.
3. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to entertain the appeal under Section 290.
4. Alleged bias of respondent No. 1 violating principles of natural justice.
5. Whether the charges against the petitioner amounted to misconduct under Section 49.
6. Authority of Shantilal Shah to issue notice under Section 49.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disqualification Order Under Section 49(2) Without Following Due Procedure:
The petitioner argued that the disqualification order under Section 49(2) was passed without following the required procedure, including giving an opportunity of hearing and due notice to the Panchayat. The court agreed, noting that the competent authority did not follow the requisite procedure before disqualifying the petitioner. The court emphasized that Section 49(2) requires a specific procedure, including giving an opportunity of hearing and holding an inquiry, which was not followed in this case. Therefore, the disqualification order at Annexure 'R' was quashed.

2. Validity of Delegation of Powers to Respondent No. 1:
The petitioner challenged the delegation of powers under Sections 49 and 290 to respondent No. 1, arguing that judicial or quasi-judicial functions could not be delegated. The court referred to a previous decision in Satubha v. Sayala Panchayat, which held that functions of the competent authority, including quasi-judicial functions, could be delegated under Section 321(4)(iii) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The court concluded that the delegation of powers to respondent No. 1 was legal and valid, dismissing the petitioner's contention.

3. Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 to Entertain the Appeal Under Section 290:
The petitioner contended that the appellate order reinstating the 11 sweepers was null and void because the appeal was not competent before respondent No. 1. The court held that Section 290(1) provides for an appeal against any order or decision of the Gram Panchayat affecting any individual or institution. The court noted that the termination of services, although an administrative order, affected the sweepers and was subject to appeal under Section 290(1). Therefore, respondent No. 1 had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the third ground raised by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Alleged Bias of Respondent No. 1 Violating Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 was biased as he was in the position of a complainant and could not act as a judge in his own complaint. The court found no evidence of personal interest or bias on the part of respondent No. 1. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised this specific contention of bias during the proceedings before the competent authority. The court also referred to the principle that a party may preclude themselves from raising an objection by their conduct. Since the petitioner had not raised the bias objection earlier and had argued the case on merits, the court dismissed this ground.

5. Whether the Charges Against the Petitioner Amounted to Misconduct Under Section 49:
The court analyzed the charges against the petitioner, which included dismissing the 11 sweepers without authority and wilful disobedience of lawful orders. The court held that wilful insubordination or defiance of lawful orders constituted misconduct. The court also found that the petitioner had no authority to dismiss the sweepers, and his actions were ultra vires and amounted to misconduct. The court concluded that both grounds of misconduct were established, and the competent authority's order of removal was justified.

6. Authority of Shantilal Shah to Issue Notice Under Section 49:
The petitioner argued that Shantilal Shah, who issued the notice under Section 49, had no authority as he was not the District Development Officer. The court found that Shantilal Shah was holding the post of District Development Officer at the relevant time and had the authority to issue the notice. The court noted that the inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 1, and all requirements of Section 49(1) were complied with. Therefore, this ground was also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the disqualification order at Annexure 'R' under Section 49(2) but upheld the removal order at Annexure 'P' under Section 49(1) and the resolution delegating powers to respondent No. 1. As success was equally divided, there was no order as to costs. The petitioner's request for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) for appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.