KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 31-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 453
453
KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2022)
MARCH 31, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Service Law – Misconduct – Suspension – Departmental
proceedings –Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 –
ss. 36, 39, 39A, 45 & 56 – Suspension of Municipal Corporation
employee – Departmental enquiry – Case registered against
Respondent No.1 (AMC of KDM Corporation) under Prevention of
Corruption Act – Subsequently, he was suspended by the
Commissioner of the KDM Corporation in exercise of power under
s. 56(1)(b) of MMC Act r/w Rule 4(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 – Notice issued against
Respondent No.1 with regard to holding of departmental enquiry
against him – Writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 – High Court
held that since the appointment of respondent No.1 was made by
the State Government in view of s.36 of the MMC Act, it is only the
State Government, which was competent to suspend and initiate
departmental inquiry against him – It was, therefore, held by the
High Court that the suspension order issued by the Commissioner
and ratified by the KDM Corporation, and the departmental inquiry
initiated by the Commissioner with approval of the KDM Corporation
was beyond their powers – Whether respondent No.1 though an
employee of the KDM Corporation, could neither be suspended
nor any departmental proceedings could be initiated against him
by KDM Corporation, since his selection and appointment was done
by the State Government – Held: High Court erred in setting aside
the suspension and departmental proceedings initiated against
respondent No.1 – Finding of the High Court that in view of s.39A
of the MMC Act, the Commissioner or the Corporation will not have
power to suspend or initiate departmental inquiry against the AMC,
is in ignorance of the provisions of s.56 and sub-section (9) of s.2
of the MMC Act – Sub-section (9) of s.2, ss.39A and 56 of the
MMC Act will have to be read in reference to each other and cannot
be read in isolation – Legislative intent cannot be to leave an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
employee scot-free though he has indulged in serious misconduct –
The legislature could not have intended a situation, wherein though
the post of AMC is created by the State Government and a suitable
person is appointed by it and though a person appointed on the
said post becomes an employee of the Corporation, there would be
no provision in the statute to initiate departmental proceedings
against him – If such an interpretation is accepted, it would lead to
absurdity and create a vacuum – The statute has to be interpreted
in such a manner that it preserves its workability – On a harmonious
construction of sub-section (9) of s.2, ss.39A and 56 of the MMC
Act, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the
power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an
AMC, who is an officer, superior in rank to the Assistant
Commissioner – However, in case of suspension of such an officer,
the only requirement would be to report to the Corporation, with
reasons thereof, and if such a suspension is not confirmed by the
Corporation within a period of six months from the date of such
suspension, the same shall come to an end – Any other interpretation
would lead to absurdity and anomaly, and therefore will have to be
avoided –Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1979 – Rule 4(1).
Interpretation of Statutes – “Harmonious construction” –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1 The court has to avoid the interpretation which
will result in head-on clash between two sections of the Act. When
one section of an Act is not in a position to bring out the legislative
intent, recourse will have to be made to other sections of the
statute for gathering the legislative intent. An attempt should be
made to see to it that the effect must be given to parts of the
statute even if they may, on first blush, appear to be conflicting.
One provision of the Act has to be construed with reference to
other provisions in the Act, so as to make a consistent enactment
of the whole statute. An attempt should be made of avoiding any
inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between
two different sections. If the court has a choice between two
interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve th

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