JUDGMENT

H. N. Seth, J. Sharat Chand Misra has filed this appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court dated 20th July, 1970 dismissing his writ petition directed against a resolution passed by the Zila Parishad, Hamirpur, dated 9-11-1963 terminating his services under rule 3-A(iv) of the Rules regarding Officers and servants of the District Board on payment of three months salary in lieu of notice.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner advanced the following arguments in support of his case that the resolution terminating his services as Secretary of Zila Parishad, was illegal:

1. That rule 3A(iv) under which the petitioner's services have been terminated, confers arbitrary powers and is discriminatory and must,therefore, be struck down for contravening Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Even assuming that rule 3-A(iv) is valid and en forcible, its requirement shave not been fulfilled in ti-c case of the petitioner because he was not paid three months' salary to which he was entitled in lieu of notice, either at the time when the impugned resolution was passed or when a copy of the resolution was served on him.

3. The resolution passed at the meeting of the Zila Parishad on 9-11-1963 was Invalid because the termination of petitioner's services was not a matter included in the agenda for that meeting and

4. The termination of the petitioner's services is a disguised order of punishment vitiated by mala fides.

3. The learned single judge did not accept the contention that rule 3-A(iv) of the rules regarding officers and servants of the District Board was invalid being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution.He did not find any defect in the resolution passed by the Zila Parishad terminating petitioners' services and held it to be valid. So far as the last point was concerned, the learned judge observed that there was nothing in the petition to show how any mala fides could be impugned to the entire Zila Parishad which passed the impugned resolution.Since it could not be said that the entire Zila Parishad bore an animus against the petitioner, the resolution was not tainted with mala fides and could not be interfered with. In the result he dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner "has now come up in appeal and has urged all the four arguments that were advanced before the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the circumstances in which the resolution dated 9-11-1963 was passed, clearly indicate that the Zile Parishad terminated petitioner's services by way of punishment. The resolution was couched In such a manner so as to give it the appearance of a simple order of termination of service under rule 3-A(iv). In order to punish the petitioner the Board had to follow the procedure prescribed in notification No. 3537/IX-131-43 dated March 25, 1946, printed at page 193 of the District Board Manual 1952 Edition. According to the notification no officer or servant of the Board can be dismissed, removed or reduced without a reasonable opportunity being given to him for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Any written defence tendered by him has to be recorded and a written order has to be passed thereon. The notification further provides that every order of dismissal, removal or reduction is to be in writing and Is to specify the charge brought,the defence and the reason for the order. It is contended that in this case before passing the resolution no opportunity for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken was given to the petitioner,and as such the order terminating his services is invalid. It was further contended that even if the petitioner was not able to make out a case of personal mala fides against each and every member of the Zila Parishad who participated in passing the impugned resolution,still the resolution terminating the petitioner's services counsel be struck down as a mala fide exercise of power ina