Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes removal of Jagraon municipal council president

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, August 5

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an order issued in December last year, removing Jatinder Pal from the post of Jagraon municipal council president after ruling that his action did not amount to abuse of power under the Punjab Municipal Act.

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh asserted that the issue before the court was whether his act of facilitating issuance of appointment letters to the selected contractual safai sewaks and sewer men amounted to an abuse of power.

After hearing senior advocate ML Saggar with counsel Sunny Saggar and Armaan Saggar for the petitioner-president, the Bench asserted it was not the case of the State and other official respondents that the persons issued appointment letters were not eligible or entitled. But the same were to be distributed in a programme yet to be fixed. At best, the petitioner tried to take credit for issuing appointment letters to the selected contractual employees at an earlier date.

The Bench asserted: “The act of the petitioner may be a decision taken in haste and under excitement to win the praise and fame in order to earn credit. But it cannot be said to be abuse of power, especially when there is no allegation by the official respondents that the same was done dishonestly or for any extraneous consideration or by using the corrupt practices.”

The Bench observed the appointment letters were not withdrawn, indicating that the selected employees were working pursuant to the issuance of appointment letters. The single act might amount to misuse of power, but not abuse.

The Bench added: “Even if the act is considered to be a misuse of power, the same does not have the gravity of causing any loss to the municipal council or the public exchequer, as it is an undisputed position that the safai sewaks and sewer men had been duly selected and they were to join their service after issuance of the appointment letters. Thus, in any manner, the petitioner’s act cannot be termed to be an abuse of power, so as to warrant his removal from the office”.

In its detailed order, the Bench observed an action must involve wilful misuse or intentional wrongdoing to be considered an abuse of power. Quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, the Bench clarified that abuse of power meant “to depart from legal or reasonable use in dealing with (a person or thing)” and involves “a wilful abuse or intentional wrong.” The Bench added an honest exercise of power might be erroneous, but was not an abuse of power.