J. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the octroi department of the Chunar Municipal Board, district Mirzapur, hereinafter referred to as the board. He worked assuch till 14 September 1953. On 15 September 1953, he was implicated in a murder case (under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in which he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Mirzapur, on 2 September 1954. He was put under suspension on 17 September 1953. On 27 June 1955, the board passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner from the date of suspension and the president of the board communicated that order to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government, which was dismissed, and the petitioner was informed about the dismissal on 29 December 1955. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application before the State Government, which was rejected on 30 July 1956. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court on 5 November 1956. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to be issued quashing the resolution of the Municipal Board, Chunar, dated 27 June 1956, dismissing the petitioner from service.
2. The petitioner's case is that he was a permanent employee. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is alleged that the petitioner was only a temporary servant but it is not disputed that he was actually dismissed by the resolution of the board and not by the order of the president. It may be stated here that there is no executive officer in this municipal board. The only question, therefore, to consider is whether the board had jurisdiction to pass the resolution and whether the petitioner's service could be terminated by that resolution.
3. Section 60(e) of the Municipalities Act runs as follows:
In any municipality where there is an executive officer appointed under Section 57 or 65, the following powers of the board shall be exercised by such officer, and not otherwise, namely:
(e) In respect of servants of the board, the powers vested in the executive officer by Sections 75 and 76, and power to grant leave of absence to the holder of any post to which he has power to appoint.
4. Sections 75 and 76 of the Municipalities Act run as follows:
75. Appointment of permanent inferior staff.-Except as otherwise provided the executive officer shall appoint-
(a) servants on a monthly salary not exceeding Rs. 40 or in a city Rs. 50; and
(b) with the sanction of the president, servants on a monthly salary exceeding Ra. 40 but not exceeding Rs. 60 or in a city, exceeding Rs. 50 but not exceeding Rs. 75.
Provided that in case there is no executive officer the said appointments shall be made by thepresident.
76. Punishment and dismissal of permanent inferior staff.-Except as otherwise provided, the executive officer may punishor dismiss:
(a) servants on or drawing a monthly salary not exceeding Rs. 40 or in a city Es. 50; and
(b) servants on or drawing a monthly salary exceeding Rs. 40 but not exceeding Rs. 50 or in a city exceeding Rs. 50 but not exceeding Rs. 75 but each order of dismissal or order imposing a fine exceeding in amount one month's pay, suspension for a period exceeding one month, or order of reduction by way of punishment, in respect of servants mentioned in Cls. (a) and (b) above shall beappeasable to the president:
Provided that in case there is no executive officer, the powers conferred by this section may be exercised by the president.
5. It would, therefore, be seen that the power to dismiss a municipal servant getting a salary of less than Rs. 40 in a non-city municipality, is that of the executive officer and, if there is no executive officer, that of the president.
6. The proviso to Sections 75 and 76 makes this clear. That being so, it was the president alone who was competent to have dismissed the petitioner and the board had no jurisdiction to do so. The word 'board' has been defined in Section 2(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act. It runs as follows:
'Board' means a municipal board and shall include in any case where a power expressed as being conferred or a duty as being imposed on a board, a committee appointed by a board and any member, officer or servant of a board authorized or required by or under this Act to exercise the power or perform the duty.
Therefore, reading Sections 60, 75, 76 and 2(1) together it appears that the president alone could remove the petitioner and the president would be deemed to be the board for the purpose of the petitioner's removal from service. The impugned order or resolution is without jurisdiction and I am inclined to set aside the same, though there 13 some delay in filing the writ petition, which in my opinion, has been properly explained. The petition is accordingly allowed. The resolution of the board, dated 27 June 1956, is quashed but I make no order as to costs.