Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab District Boards Act (XX of 1883), S. 26-Rules of business-Chairman competent to suspend servants drawing salary not exceeding Rs. 100-Punjab General Clauses Act (I of 1898), S. 14. The Chairman, District Board, Rawalpindi, is competent to pass an order suspending from service a servant drawing salary not exceeding Rs. 100 p. m. It is, no doubt, true that by the rules the Chairman had not been authorized to pass an order suspending an employee of the status of the appellant from service, but that power was sub­sequently conferred on the Chairman as is clear from letter No. 1140-L. G.-40/14268, dated the 21st of March 1940 from the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Medical and Local Government Departments to the address of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division. The letter shows that the Governor of the Punjab had accorded sanction to the delegation by the respondent District Board to its Chairman of the powers to suspend and transfer District Board servants drawing salary not exceeding Rs. 100 per mensem. It is clear from the language of section 14, Punjab General Clauses Act (I of 1898) that in the absence of any other provision of law or rule being applicable the appointing authority has the power to suspend an employee from service, but nowhere has it been mentioned in the section that the power to pass an order of suspension cannot be delegated. (b) Punjab District Boards Act (XX of 1883), S. 26-Rules of business-Rule 8.1---Servant not given opportunity to show cause against dismissal-Civil suit, nevertheless, trot com­petent-Government of India Act, 1935, S. 240. There is no provision in any enactment which grants to the employees of District Boards in the Punjab safeguards granted to civil servants by section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and a dismissed servant can at best rely on the rules. Non-compliance with rules, however, does not give an employee a right to lodge a suit. R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary, of State for India in Council, I. L. 8.,1937 Mad. 532 rel. The decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in I. M. Lall's case (A I R 1948 P. C. 121) is based on an interpretation of section 240 of the Government of India…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492