This court dismissed the writ petition filed by a suspended Municipal Council President challenging his suspension and the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner as Enquiry Officer. The court rejected claims of malafide and held no merit for changing the officer.
The writ petition is dismissed; respondents may proceed with the inquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP NO. 10909 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP NO. 10909 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.9.2008.
Vijay Rao
..........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
..........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri,Senior Advocate with Mr.Binanjeet Sheoran,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Rana,Addl.A.G.Haryana for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.ML Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shailender Jain,Advocate for respondent no.4.
Jaswant Singh,J.
Petitioner, who is President, under suspension, of Municipal Council, Rewari, has filed the present writ petition, praying for setting aside the order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent no.1Government of Haryana, whereby Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to hold a regular enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, with a further prayer directing respondent no.1 to appoint any other higher official or any other independent agency to conduct the enquiry.
Facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as Municipal Councillor from Ward No.20 of City Rewari on 20.5.2005 in the election
CWP NO. 10909 of 2008
2
held on 16.4.2005 and he became President of the Municipal Council, Rewari and took oath as such on 3.6.2005. It is averred by the petitioner that he was discharging his duties to the best of his ability and with unimpeachable integrity when he was shocked to receive notice dated 19.12.2007 whereby it was intimated that 22 members of the Municipal Council, Rewari have signed a memo with their affidavits, seeking a no confidence motion against the petitioner, for which a special meeting was scheduled on 4.1.2008 under Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Elections Rules,1978 ( for short the 1978 Rules). Petitioner challenged the impugned notice by filing CWP No.2/2008, in which notice of motion was issued and interim order was passed directing the respondents not to hold the said meeting.
Respondents thereafter passed order dated 8.1.2008 suspending the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 14-A and 22-A of the Haryana Municipal Act,1973 (for short 1973 Act). Petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No.2365 of 2008 in which notice of motion was issued for 22.4.2008 primarily on the ground that no enquiry against him was pending or any Enquiry Officer appointed for his removal. Since the petitioner had been suspended, CWP No. 2 of 2008 was disposed of as having become infructuous, vide order dated 16.1.2008. Thereafter, the respondents passed impugned order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P/1), appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari to hold regular enquiry against the petitioner with a request to send the enquiry report to the Government within one month. Hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court on 12.6.2008, which came up for hearing on
CWP NO. 10909 of 2008 3
13.6.2008 and the following order was passed:-
“Notice of motion for 29.8.2008.
In the meantime, the respondents may proceed with the inquiry, however, the final order be not passed without leave of the court.”
Respondents 1 and 2 have filed reply dated 27.8.2008, in which it has been stated that Enquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, has already submitted his report dated 1.7.2008, in which out of 11 charges, 9 charges have been proved against the petitioner. On the basis of enquiry report a show cause notice dated 5.8.2008 for taking action against the petitioner under Sections 14 and 22 of the 1973 Act has been issued to which the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 18.8.2008 and in deference to the interim order dated 13.6.2008, no final order has been passed.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the fact, as reflected in Annexure P-2, that the complainants, at whose instance enquiry has been initiated and Enquiry Officer appointed, were fictitious persons, the matter should have been sent back to the State Government for re-consideration rather than proceeding to complete the enquiry. It was further argued that the very initiation of the enquiry, in view of the background of the case is mala fide and further that his request for change of the Enquiry Officer has not been considered, with a mala fide intention.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that it is wrong to say that enquiry proceedings had been initiated merely on the basis of complaint received from alleged fictitious persons.
CWP NO. 10909 of 2008 4
In fact the enquiry was initiated on the complaint of 17 Municipal Councillors and the Enquiry Officer, after following due process of law and giving full opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses, has submitted his voluminous report holding him guilty on 9 out of 11 charges . The allegations of mala fide have been denied.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
It is apparent from the record that 17 municipal councillors had made a complaint against the petitioner disclosing his various acts and omissions, on the basis of which 11 charges were framed. We further find that the Enquiry Officer after complying with the requirements of law and giving full opportunity to the petitioner has submitted his detailed report dated 1.7.2008, finding the petitioner guilty of 9 out of 11 charges. In the facts of the case we cannot say that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer is a mala fide action of the respondents. We further find that no case for change of Enquiry Officer has been made out by the petitioner.
For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.
(Jaswant Singh)
10.9.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal) joshi Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner as Enquiry Officer against the suspended Municipal Council President was mala fide.
Whether the petitioner has made out a valid case for changing the Enquiry Officer.
Vijay Rao
State of Haryana
Jaswant Singh
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
