JUDGMENT

Young, J. - This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur by which order he committed Rai Bahadur Pandit Shea Narain Misra, the Chairman of the District Board of Shahjahanpur and Sardar Indar Singh, the engineer and acting secretary of the Board, for 6 months, for contempt of Court. Both these persons appeal against the order of the learned District Judge.

2. There apparently was friction in the District Board of Shahjahanpur between the Chairman and the members of the Board on the one hand, and Mr. Kailashi Nath Kapoor who was secretary and had held that office for some 12 years on the other. The result was that by a resolution dated 22nd June 1932 the Board dismissed Mr. Kailashi Nath from his office alleging as reason therefor, firstly, the economic situation and the desitability of the amalgamating the offices of the engineer and the secretary, and, secondly, that Mr. Kailashi Nath was unsatisfactory, incompetent, and had been creating friction among the members of the Board.

3. On the 23rd June Mr. Kailashi Nath filed a suit for an injuction restraining the defendants from interfering with the discharge of his duties as secretary and prohibiting them from illegally discharging him from that office. I would like to note here that though in the ordinary case of a master and a servant an injunction certainly would not lie restraining a master from dismissing his servant, the remedy of the servant, if he was wrongly dismissed, would be for damages; but in the case of the District Board they are governed by a statute. u/s 71, District Boards Act, (10 of 1922) the Board may punsih or dismiss a secretary subject to the rules made under the authority of the statute by the Local Government. The rules in accordance with the statute have been framed by the Local Government. Rule 3 enacts as follows:

No officer or servant shall be dismissed without a reasonable opportunity being given to him of being heard in his own defence, etc.

4. It is clear therefore that it would be open for a dismissed servant to allege that the rule had not been complied with and that therefore he was not legally dismissed from his office. He would then be in a position to ask the Court for an injunction. The learned Munsif before whom the suit was filed, issued an interim injunction in terms of the motion. He issued notice to the Board and its Chairman to show cause. On hearing the motion the learned Munsif discharged the interim injunction. That was on 6th July 1932. No sooner was the injunction discharged, than the Chairman of the Board appointed on his own initiative Mr. Indar Singh to act as secretary in place of Mr. Kailashi Nath. The same day however the plaintiff filed an appeal in the District Judge's Court and asked for an injunction. The District Judge passed an order staying the order of the Munsif cancelling the injunction and issued notice to the Board to show cause. That notice was returnable on the 9th July. However on the 8th July the Chairman of the Board filed an application in which he recorded the fact that another secretary had been appointed by him and in which he said the Board was in an awkward position. He asked for the direction of the Court and said that the order passed by the Court would be promptly obeyed. Nothing was however done either upon this application by the Board or on the application of the plaintiff until 23rd July. On that date the learned Judge passed this order:

The order discharging the interim injunction granted by the Munsif was stayed by me on the 6th instant. It stands and shall stand good till the disposal of the appeal. I would not however stand in the way of the District Board's doing what they are not strictly restrained from under the interim injunction, for instance the reconsideration of their resolution as directed by the commissioner. No fresh injunction is, I think, necessary.

5. On the 24th July a meeting of the Board was held to consider the resolution of 22nd Jun