An order of removal of a member of a Market Committee under S. 15 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, is not illegal if it includes matters which do not relate to the conduct of the member as a member of the Market Committee when there are matters included in it which relate to the conduct of the member as such member and upon which the action taken or order made by the State Government can be sustained.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. This is the question for consideration of the Full Bench in relation to Section 15 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Punjab Act 23 of 1961), hereinafter to be referred as the Act,--

"If the State Government, acting under Section 15 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, mentions among the reasons for the proposed removal of a member of the Market Committee, certain grounds which do not relate to the conduct of the member concerned as a member, but at the same time mentions several grounds which relate to his conduct as a member of the Market Committee and an order for the members removal is made under Section 15 of the Act on the view that the explanation obtained from the member is unsatisfactory, does the order of the State Government become illegal because of the inclusion of matters which do not relate to the conduct of the member as a member of the Market Committee?"

The question arises in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sahela Ram petitioner, who was Administrator of the Hissar Market Committee between February 14, 1959, and April 12, 1961. On April 15, 1961, a new Market Committee for the Hissar Market area was constituted under the provisions of the previous Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the same has been deemed to have been constituted under the Act by reason of Section 47. Section 15 of the Act is in these words:

"15 The State Government may by notification remove any member if, in its opinion, he has been guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty or has lost the qualification on the strength of which he was appointed: Provided that before the State Government notify the removal of a member under this section, the reasons for his proposed removal shall be communicated, to the member concerned and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing "

On June 4, 1963, the petitioner was served, through a registered letter, with three heads of charges alleging gross misconduct and neglect of duty in him in the performance of his duties as a member and chairman of the Hissar Market Committee. In the statement of allegations the first head concerns the drawal of excess T. A., under the second head, which relates to misuse of powers, there are four sub-heads out of which three sub-heads concern the conduct of the petitioner after his becoming the chairman of the Hissar Market Committee on its constitution on April 15, 1961, but one head concerns his conduct as an Administrator and hence his conduct before April 15, 1961, although it has been said that that head partly also covers the period after April 15, 1961. and the third head relating to misuse of market committee funds, but of three subheads, two definitely concern his conduct as Administrator of the Hissar Market Committee before April 15, 1961, and the third to his conduct as chairman of Hissar Market Committee after that date. The petitioner was given opportunity to render explanation of the charges against him in the wake of the proviso to Section 15 of the Act and in paragraph 2 of the letter addressed to him, with the statement of allegations, it was stated that.

"if for the purposes of giving your explanation, you wish to inspect any official record in the office of the Market Committee, Hissar, and/or in the office of the State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patiala, you may do so at your own expense and after fixing up an appointment with the concerned officials."

It is obvious that the charges in the statement of allegations were based on the material before the proper authority communicating to the petitioner the reasons for his proposed removal from membership of the Market Committee on the grounds of his guilt of misconduct and neglect of duty as detailed in the statement of allegations. It has not been the case of the petitioner that here was no material or evidence in support of the charges in the statement of allegations.

2. After considera