New recruits were appointed in their place.
19 6 After the dismissal of the 74 employees on 9th April, 1964 some of the employees appealed against the order of dis missal and most of them were reinstated.
The Board bad, therefore, to act quickly as in an emergency to recruit sweepers to do the job but it was difficult to recruit new men unless companytinuous employment was given to them and, hence, on 8th April, 1964, the Board arranged to have it announced by beat of drum in the town that, unless the striking employees resumed duties by the evening of 9th April, 1964, they were liable to be dismissed.
The substance of the allegations in the petition by the Municipal Board was that, on account of certain disputes between the Board and the sweeper employees of the Board, there was a sudden strike by the latter on 7th April, 1964.
They further alleged that the order had been passed out of sheer spite in order to teach them a lesson.
By order PRAN NATH KAPOOR Secretary.
It was admitted that the procedure laid down by Rule 5 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Boards Servants Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules was number adopted before taking disciplinary action by way of dismissal but the Board justified its action by reference to the proviso to Rule 5 1 which stated that the provisions of sub rule 5 1 shall number apply where the person companycerned had absconded and where, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it was impracticable to companymunicate with him.
On that view of the matter, the Boards petition was dismissed by the High Court and, hence, the present appeal.
19 4 P. Goyal and G. N. Wantoo, for the appellant.
It was companytended that numbersuch order under S. 34 1 B of the Act companyld be validly made by the State Government.
The employee respondents, on the other hand , denied the more substantial allegations in the petition.
1 to the petition, supported its order and companytended that the order had been passed in the public interest as, in its opinion, the order of the Executive Officer was illegal and arbitrary and had the effect of throwing a large body of employees out of employment making them suffer privation and misery on account of the companytinuing operation of the order which was illegally passed.
There was numberquestion also of any insanitary companyditions developing in the town and there was numbergood reason at all for passing an order of dismissal of all the employees in a body.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
As many as 74 sweepers struck work without numberice.
Later, i.e., more than a year after the order of dismissal, the State Government, purporting to act under section 34 1 B of the Act, passed the above order prohibiting the execution or further execution of the order of dismissal passed by the Executive Officer.
42 of 1968.
They alleged that, as a matter of fact, the employees had number gone on strike and, therefore there was numberquestion of their abstaining from doing their duties either on the 7th, 8th or the 9th of April, 1964.
The State Government, which was respondent No.
The impugned order is as follows P. Government Department of Municipal Board, Serial No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Palekar, J. This appeal by special leave against the decision of the appellate Bench of the Allahabad High Court involves the question of the legality and validity of an order dated 12th May, 1965 passed by the State Government purporting to act under section 34 1 B of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
By reason of the strike, insanitary companyditions developed in the town endangering public health.
This order was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court by the Municipal Board, Kannauj as being illegal and invalid on several grounds.
457 of 1967.
The dismissal of the above sweepers was illegal and improper because the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Karamchari Janch, Dand tatha Seva Samapti Niyamawali U.P. Municipal Boards Servants Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service Rules was number followed and they were number given any opportunity of being heard and the opinion of the State Government is that the above order of 9th April, 1964 by the present Executive Officer Municipal Board Kannauj is adverse to public interest and the order has been made by seriously defying the rules of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Karamchari Janch Dand tatha Seva Samapti Niyamawali U.P. Municipal Boards Servants Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service Rules .
1725 GI IIP 1964/64 12 5 65 NOTIFICATION The then Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Kannauj dismissed 74 sweepers of Municipal Board Kannauj from 9th April, 1964 under section 76 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 25, 31 to 35, 38, 39, 42 to 50, 53 to 56, 58, 59, 60 to 62, 65 to 67, 69 to 71, 73 and 76.
11, 1916 prohibits the execution of the above order of 9th April 1964 and any act done by any person in pursuance of that order and the companytinuance of that order.
The strikers did number join duties by the evening of 9th April, 1964 and, therefore, the Executive Officer of the Board dismissed the 74 strikers who were made parties to the petition.
1 9 5 So, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his power under section 34 sub section 1 B of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 191 6 U.P.Act No.
P. Rana, for respondents Nos.
The others did number appeal and, therefore, the order of dismissal stood in their case.
K. Pari and S. K. Dhingra, for respondents Nos.
1 and 2.
