CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1991) 10 AHC CK 0054

Wasiuddin vs Municipal Board Nehtaur and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 8 October 1991 · Citation: (1992) 1 AWC 135

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.S. Chauhan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 30402 of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 370 words

D.P.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 17-9-1991 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is bad, firstly, because it has not been passed either in contemplation of enquiry, or during the pendency of enquiry, against the Petitioner. This submission has no substance. The impugned orders itself indicates that the order has been passed in contemplation of enquiry and also on the ground of detention in prison of the Petitioner in connection with some crime.

4.

The next submission advanced was that the power of suspension u/s 77-B of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is vested in the Board The present order has been passed by the Chairman of the Board. This submission has also no substance. The opening words are that the authority competent to punish a servant may place him under suspension. u/s 76 of the Act, the authority competent is described.

5.

The next submission as advanced by the counsel for the Petitioner is that for the same charges he was earlier suspended and after enquiry he was exonerated, but he has been again suspended for the same charges. Though the factual position does not seem to be correct, yet I express no opinion.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Board has not passed any resolution and, therefore, the order is bad. If it is so, then, instead of coming to this Court, the Petitioner should have approached the Board. u/s 77-B(4) of the Act, which is extracted below, a remedy is provided:

(4) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this section, may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by the appellate authority.

7.

The impugned order also discloses the indecent behavior and indecent language of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary jurisdiction. I am not inclined to interfere.

8.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.