MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, VEH ARI vs HASHMAT ALI
The matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order accepting a revision petition and setting aside the dismissal of the respondent, a permanent employee of the Municipal Committee, Vehari. The core legal question is whether the High Court, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, can interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts upholding a departmental dismissal that was allegedly based on no evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered under section 115, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as dismissing an employee without any evidence constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity by the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must exercise their powers consistently with the governing statute, and courts possess the jurisdiction to declare an employment termination illegal and ultra vires when it is unsupported by any evidence.
- Can the High Court interfere in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 with a departmental dismissal upheld by subordinate courts?
- Does the dismissal of an employee without any evidence amount to acting in the exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity?
- Are the powers of a statutory body subject to the constituting statute when determining the employment of a servant?
- Section 115, Civil Procedure Code 1908
- Section 115 clause (c), Civil Procedure Code 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The respondent was a permanent employee of the Municipal Committee, Vehari and working as an Additional Octroi Inspector. He was dismissed from service by the Chairman of the Committee. He, accordingly, challenged the order of his dismissal by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed. His appeal before the District Judge, Vehari also failed. He, therefore, moved the High Court by a revision petition. The learned Judge in High Court. In a detailed and elaborate order, after thoroughly perusing the enquiry proceedings, found that the dismissal of the respondent was not based on any evidence and, therefore, an arbitrary exercise of the powers vested in the authority pass--ing the order of dismissal. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition and decreed the suit and granted the declaration as prayed for by the respondent. This petition is directed against the above order of the High Court.
2. The main contention raised by Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul in support of this petition, is that the learned Judge in Chamber has misconceived the scope of a revision petition under section 115 of the C. P. C. And has accepted the revision petition by appreciating the evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings. This matter was entirely within the power of the departmental authorities, and the learned Judge in the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such a matter.
3. We regret we do not agree. The learned Judge has observed in his order that "a dismissal cannot ordinarily be challenged on the ground that evidence did not warrant a drastic action like dismissal, for, on that point the Municipal Committee is the sole Judge. But the powers of the statutory body are always subject to the statute which has constituted it, and must be exercised consistently with the statute, and the Courts have, in appropriate cases, the power to declare an action of the body illegal and ultra vires, even if the action relates to determination of employment of a servant".
4. We agree with these observations. The learned Judge, therefore, possessed the jurisdiction to interfere under section 115, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, where under the judgment and decree of the subor--dinate Courts can be interfered with, if the Courts below have acted the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The dismissal of an employee without any evidence would clearly be case of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity if not a case o illegal exercise of jurisdiction itself.
5. No ground for interference is, therefore, made out. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.