J.N. GANATRA versus MORVI MUNICIPALITY, MORVI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 19-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J.N. GANATRA 
v. 
MORYi MUNICIPALITY, MORYi 
JULY 19, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Se1vice La~v : 
Mo1vi City Municipal Officers and Se1vants Conduct, Discipline, Dis-
C missal, Penalty and Appeal Rules, 1960 : 
Rule 35-Dismissal from se1vice-Procedure to be followed-Appellant 
dismissed from se1vice without following the procedure-Suit filed by appel-
lant dismissed-Appellate cowt decreed the suit-High Corut held the dis-
missal as illegal, but dismissed the suit as bmred by time u/s. 253(1) of 
D Gujarat Municipalities Act-Held order of dismissal being patently and gross-
ly in violation of the provisions of the Rules, it cannot be treated to have been 
passed under the Act-Suit of appellant decreed-Limitation-Gujarat 
Municipalities Act, 1963, s.253(1). 
E 
The respondent-Municipality dismissed the appellant from service. 
F 
G 
The appellant challenged the order in the civil suit which was dismissed. 
On appeal, the suit was decreed. In the second appeal filed by the respon-
dent, the High Court though held that the order dismissing the appellant 
was illegal as it was passed without complying with the provisions of r. 35 
of the Morvi City Municip~I Officers and Servants Conduct, Discipline, 
Dismissal, Penalty and Appeal. Rules, 1960, but dismissed the appellant's 
suit as barred by Limitation u/s. 253(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 
1963. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The High Court erred in reaching the conclusion that the 
dismissal of the appellant from service, in utter violation of rule 35 of the 
Morvi City Municipal Officers and Servant Conduct, Discipline, Dismissal, 
Penalty and Appeal Rules, was an act done in pursuance or execution or 
intended execution of the Act. It is no doubt correct that the General Board 
H of the Municipality had the power under the Act to dismiss the appellant 
742 
J .N. GANATRA v. MOR VI MUNICIPALITY [KULDIP SINGH, J. J 
743 
but the said power could only be exercised in the manner indicated by mle A 
35 of the Rules. Admittedly the power of dismissal has not been exercised 
the way it was rel(uired to be done under the Act. [747-E-F] 
1.2. A power under a statute has to he exercised in accordance with 
the pro,·isions of the statute and in no other manner. In view of the 
categoric tinding given by the lfigh Court to the effect that the order of 
dismissal was on the face of it illegal and void, the dismissal of the 
appellant \\'as not an act done in pursuance of execution or intended 
execution of the Act. The order of dismissal being patently and grossly in 
violation of the plain provisions of the Rules, it cannot be. treated to have 
B 
been passed under the Act. [747-G] 
C 
Poona City Municipal Cmporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodlte1; 
[1964] 8 SCR 178 & Municipal Cmporation v. S/11i Niyamatu/lah S/o. 
Masitulla, [1970] 2 SCR 47, relied on. 
2. The dismissal order in the present case could only be passed by D 
following the procedure laid down under rule 35. of the Rules. The 
Municipal Board had no jurisdiction or authority to disn1iss the appellant 
without folltnving the mandatory procedure. The impugned judgment of 
the High Court is set aside and the suit of the appellant is decreed with 
costs. [748-E-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6625 of 
1995. 
From the. Judgment and Order dated 17.8.84 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.A. No. 22 of 1978. 
Ms. Raichura and H.A. Raichura for the Appellant. 
Anip Sachthey for the Respondent. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellant was employed as an Overseer 
with Morvi Municipality in Rajkot District, State of Gujarat. He was 
dismissed from service by a resolution dated December 1, 1970 passed by 
the Municipality. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal by way 
E 
F 
G 
of a civil suit. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court, H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A however, reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. '!:he 
second appeal filed by the Municipality was allowed by the High Court and 
the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court was set aside 
and the suit of the appellant was dismissed on the short ground that the 
same was barred by limitation under Section 253(1) of the Gujarat 
B Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Act). This appeal by way of special leave is 
against the judgment of the High C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.