SHRIMATI HIRA DEVI AND OTHERS versus DISTRICT BOARD, SHAHJAHANPUR

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 20-10-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
State of 
Travancore~ 
Cochin 
and Others 
v. 
The Bombay 
Co. Ltd. 
Patanjali 
Sastri C. /. 
1952 
Oct. 20. 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19521 
In the result, 
agreeing with the conclusion of the 
High Court, though on different grounds, 
we dismiss 
the appeals with costs. 
Appeals dismissed. 
Agent for the appellants : P. A. Mehta. 
Agent for the respondent in C. A. No. 25 of 52 : 
M. S. K. Sastri. 
Agent for the respondent in C. A. No. 28 of 
52 : 
Sardar Bahadur. 
Agent for the respondent in C. A. No. 29 of 52 : 
V. P. K. Nambiyar. 
. 
Agent for 
the Interveners (Union of India, State 
of Bombay, State of Madras, 
State of Hyderabad, 
State of Punjab, State of Mysore, and State of Orissa) : 
P. A. Mehta. 
• 
~ 
Agent for the State of Uttar Pradesh : C. P. Lal. 
SHRIMA TI HIRA DEVI AND OTHERS 
v. 
DISTRICT BOARD, SHAHJAHANPUR 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA 
ArYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.) 
U. 
P. 
District Boards Act (X of 1922), ss. 
71, 90-District 
Board-Dismissal 
of 
secretary-Resolutions 
far 
dismissal, 
and 
suspension pending decision of appeal to Government-Validity of 
suspension. 
Section 71 of the U. P. District Boards Act, 1922, as 
amend~ 
cd in 1933 provided that a resolution of the Board for the 
dis~ 
missal of its secretary shall not take effect until the period 
of 
one month has expired or until the State Government have 
pass-
ed orders on any appeal preferred by him. 
A District 
Board 
passed a resolution for dismissal of its secretary and also for his 
suspension till the matter oi his 
dismissai 
was 
deci<led 
unde:r 
section 71 
of the Act on an appeal if any 
preferred by 
the 
secretary : H'lld, that under section 90 of the 
Act 
a 
secretary 
could be suspended only as a 
punishment or pending inquiry or 
• 
( 
• 
_) 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1123 
pending the orders of any . authority whose 
sanction is necessary 
for 
his 
dismissal. 
The words "pending the orders of any 
authonty whose sanction is necessary for his dismissal" could 
not appropriately cover the_ case of a suspension like the present 
one and the resolution for suspension was therefore ultra vircs. 
· 
Heid furtlier, that since the Board was created by statute, 
and its powers of dismissal and suspension are defined and 
circumscribed by sections 71 and 90 of the Act it would not be 
legitimate to have resort to general or impliQC] powers under the 
law of master and servant or under section 16 of the U.P. 
C.eneral 
Clauses Act ; and even 
under section 16 of that Act 
powers which are vested in an authority to suspend or dismiss 
any person appointed, 
are to be operative only "unless a differ. 
oo.t intention appears" and such a different int.ention is to be 
found in sections 71 and 90 of the Act which codify the powers 
of dismissal and suspension vested in the Board. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
114 of 1951. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree 
dated 
the 
5th September, 1947, of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad 
(Waliullah 
and Sapru JJ.) 
in First 
Appeal No. 516 of 1942 arising out of Judgment and 
Decree dated the 3rd October, 1942, of the Court of the 
Civil Judge of Shahjahanpur in Original Suit No. 1() 
of 1941. 
Achhru Ram (N. C. Sen, with him) for the appel~ 
Ian ts. 
C. K. Daphtary (K. B. Asthana, with him) for the 
respondents. 
1952. October 20. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal by the heirs 
and 
legal representatives of the deceased 
plaintiff 
against 
the decree of the High Court qf Judicature at Allaha· 
bad allowing the appeal of the defendants against · the 
decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge of Shah-
~ 
jahanpur in favour of the plaintiff allowing the plain· 
· tiff's claim in part. 
One Kailashi Nath Kapoor, the plaintiff, was em-
ployed by the District 
Board of 
Shahjahanpur, 
the 
defendants, as their Secretary in the year 1924. 
He 
17-10 S. C. India 71 
•1952 
Shrimati 
Hira Devi 
and Others 
v. 
District Board, 
Shahjahanpur. 
Bhogwati /. 
1952 
SArimati 
Hira Deui 
ttnd Others 
v. 
District Board, 
Shahiahanpur. 
Bhagwati /, 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
was also entrusted in 1929 with the additional duties 
of doing assessment work 
for the defendants. 
The 
work done by the plaintiff did not find favour with 
some members of the Board and on the 9th November. 
1939, six members of the Board tabled · a 
resolution 
asking the Chairman to convene a special meeting of 
the Board
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.