@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.S. Shukla, Member
The applicant was lately a Cattle Pound Inspector in the service of Janapada Sabha, Kawardha, district Durg. By an order of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 23/25-6-55, he was retired with effect from 1-7-55 on attaining the age of superannuation. An appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was summarily rejected on 26-7-55. The present revision has been filed before the Board on 16-8-55 against the original order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 23/25-6-55 referred to above.
Revisional powers are, no doubt, exercisable by the Board against the order of the Chief Executive Officer by virtue of the authority delegated to it u/s 6(1) read with Schedule I of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. But a reference to Rules 2 and 3 framed by the State Government u/s 182 (2) (xvi) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, would show that a restriction has been imposed by the State Government on its revisional powers by laying down that a revision would lie only against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and that too only when the employee is getting Rs. 150 p.m. or over. In a case arising out of the C.P. Municipalities Act, where identical rules prevail, it was held by the High Court in Prahlad v. Municipal Committee, Achalpur 1955 N L J 109 and by the Board of Revenue in Rajaram Gangaram v. Municipal Committee, Sausar 1953 NLJ 399 that such a restriction by the State Government on its own powers is not ultra vires of the Act. The present applicant was getting only Rs. 57-8-0. Obviously, therefore, the Board in its delegated capacity cannot exercise a power which the State Government itself has not elected to exercise.
It may be added that the above consideration would apply if it is taken that the order of the Chief Executive Officer amounted to a ''removal'' of the applicant from service, within the meaning of Section 73(2) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, a proposition which is not free from doubt.
There is no specific provision in the above cited Local Government Act or, the rules made thereunder, under which the impugned order of the Chief Executive Officer may be said to have been passed. On the other hand, it appears from the record of the Janapada, that the Chief Executive Officer acted in accordance with the executive instructions of the State Government contained in Government (Janapada) Department''s memo. No. 3475/3105-J-XIII, dated 13-11-51 which enjoins that no Janapada employee can be retained in service beyond the age of superannuation. It was, therefore, only in his capacity as the Agent of the State Government, entirely outside the scope of the Local Government Act or any other enactment, that the Chief Executive Officer took the impugned action. u/s 159 ibid revisional powers are exercisable only when the impugned order of "an officer subordinate" to State Government is passed while he is "acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by or under" the Local Government Act. If in passing an order the Chief Executive Officer does not act under the Local Government Act, his order, would not be subject to a revision u/s 159 ibid. On similar grounds his order would not also be appealable (see Section 156 ibid).
Thus it is clear that whether we view the matter in the light of considerations mentioned in para. 2 or in para. 4 above, no revision would lie to the Board of Revenue.
The Learned Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner in his appellate order that the master was not appealable before him as the applicant was a ''specified'' officer within the meaning of Section 68 (1) ibid. I agree that this view of the learned Deputy Commissioner is obviously erroneous. The applicant was drawing only Rs. 57-3-0 in a scale of which the maximum is only Rs. 30. He is also not mentioned in the list of specified officers given in Rule 1 of the rules u/s 68 (2). He was, therefore, not a specified officer.
I need go no further into the merits of the Deputy Commissioner''s order, since it ended in the rejection of the appeal, though on different grounds. The result would have been the same if he had taken the view expressed in para. 4 above.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed as untenable.
