TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was passed by the Administrative Officer dismissing the petitioner from service. The 1951 Act came into force on the 1st May 1912, and the supersession came to an end. The order of dismissal was served on the petitioner On the 3rd of May 1952. It appears that the Corporation became dissatisfied with various orders of appointment and discharge made by the Administrative Officer, and a Sub-Committee of 13 members was appointed under Section 98(1) of the Act, to examine and scrutinise such cases. The case of the petitioner amongst others was considered by the Special Committee. On the 13th of June 1952, the Sub-Committee recommended that the order of dismissal of the petitioner should be set aside. Sometime in June 1952, a resolution was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Commission. There is no doubt that in this case the Municipal Service Commission was not consulted. The point therefore that has to be decided is very short. If the petitioner was validly dismissed on the 26th April 1952, then indeed the Corporation would have no jurisdiction to reinstate him. What it could do was to reappoint him. Equally, there is no doubt that reappointment would require observance of the procedure laid down in Section 81(2) of the Act, namely consultation with the Municipal Service Commission. In order to meet this point, Mr. Roy on behalf of the petitioner has advanced the following argument: He says that it is true that on the 26th April 1952. an order was made by the Administrative Officer. It was however no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the order of reinstatement would be in order, whereas if it is a dismissal on the 26th April 1952 by the Administrative Officer, then the order of reinstatement must be held to be bad. Upon this short point, namely as to the effective date of the order Mr. Roy has quoted several authorities. He has placed before me the judgment of Bose, J. in Calcutta Cloth Agency v. S. Banerjee, an unreported judgment dated the 3rd of April 1947. In that case the question arose as to whether an application before the Board of Revenue by way of revision was barred by limitation or not. What happened was that an application had been made before the Board of Revenue but this application was dealt with without any notice to the appellant and the question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 34 Mad 151. That was a case under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. The learned Judge said as follows:-- A decision cannot properly be said to be passed until it is in some way pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have reasonable opportunity of knowing what it contains. Till then, though it may be written out, signed and dated, it is nothing but the decision which the officer intends to pass. It is not passed so long as it is open to him to tear up what he has written and write something else. 3. The next decision to be considered is K. V. E. Swaminathan v. Lakshmanan Chettiar, ( ILR 53 Mad 491 : AIR1930Mad490 ). That case also dealt with Section 77 of the Indian Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferable. In my opinion the position may be summed up as follows: (1) An order may be taken to be made on the date it came into existence, if the nature of the order is such that it is not necessary to communicate it to anyone. It is easy to see that only very few orders will satisfy this test. (2) If an order is made which affects the rights of a person, then the order must be communicated to such person in order to be complete and effective. The date of the order is the date when it is made known to the affected party. To this however, there are certain exceptions, which are as follows; (i) Where the order is made in the presence of the party, whose right has been affected, (ii) Where notice has been given to the party affecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n established that the matter comes within any of the exceptions I have mentioned above. There was no occasion to wait from the 26th April to the 3rd of May 1952. Certainly the employee's address was known and the order could have been sent to him by post if he was on leave. Following one of the reasonings given above, it might be said that the Administrative Officer during this interregnum might have changed his mind and counter manded or destroyed the order. In my opinion, the order cannot be said to have been made until the 3rd of May 1952, when it was served upon the petitioner. It is from that date that his dismissal should be counted. If that is so then in view of the reasonings, I have set out above, the reinstatement by the Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
