MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. versus R. M. DOSHI

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 1109 · Decided: 02-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1109
1109
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR.
v.
R. M. DOSHI
(Civil Appeal No. 6069 of 2012)
MAY 02, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971
– Rule 6 – Respondent was discharging his duty as city engineer of
the appellant-Municipal corporation – Respondent was charged
with irregularities in the execution of work and construction of roads
– Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation passed a dismissal
order against the respondent – Respondent challenged the dismissal
order before the High Court, arguing that the Commissioner lacked
the authority and jurisdiction – Appellant corporation submitted
that under Resolution No.51, the commissioner had passed the final
order and his order was ratified by the General body of corporation
– Single Judge of the High Court quashed the dismissal order based
on the lack of authority of the Commissioner – The Division Bench
upheld the decision of the Single Judge – On appeal, held: The
High Court have rightly observed that the Resolution No.51 did not
authorize and confer any power upon the Commissioner to take
action with respect to any other lapses other than the purchases –
However, the General Board had the power to pass an order of
dismissal and the decision of the Commissioner was placed before
the General Board and the decision was ratified – Therefore, the
dismissal can be said to be an order passed by the General Board –
Judgment of High Court quashed and set aside – Order of dismissal
restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The submission on behalf of the appellant
Corporation that vide Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998, the
Commissioner was authorized to take action against any officer
with regard to the lapses and/or negligence on the part of the
officers in various works and purchases is concerned, on going
through the Resolution No. 51, it appears that though the issue
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
raised was with regard to the lapses and negligence on the part
of the officers in various works and purchases and was discussed,
however, ultimately, what was resolved was to empower the
Commissioner to take proper and necessary action against those
erring officers, who committed lapses and carelessness in various
works in purchases and take action as per the rules and
regulations, wherever, necessary. Therefore, the Commissioner
was authorized to take action against the erring officers with
respect to the lapses and carelessness with various works in
purchases only. Therefore, both the Single Judge as well as the
Division bench of the High Court have rightly observed and held
that the Resolution No. 51 did not authorize and/or confer any
power upon the Commissioner to take action with respect to any
other lapses other than the purchases. However, at the same
time, it is required to be noted that the decision of the
Commissioner was placed before the General Board and the
General Board vide its Resolution No.56 dated 15.12.1998 as
amended by subsequent Resolution dated 30.12.1998, ratified
the decision of the Commissioner dismissing the respondent from
service. In the present case, the General Board had the power
to pass an order of dismissal, which is not even disputed by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The
decision of the Commissioner was placed before the General
Board and the General Board had ratified the said decision.
Therefore, thereafter, the dismissal can be said to be an order
passed by the General Board. [Para 7.1][1115-C-G; 1116-A-B]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Pannalal Choudhury to the facts of the case on hand, any
irregularity complained of by the respondent on the authority
exercised by the Commissioner to dismiss him stood ratified by
the competent authority (General Board) thereby making an
invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure
prescribed under the Act and the Rules. [Para 7.2][1116-F]
National Institute of Technology and Anr. Vs. Pannalal
Choudhury and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669 : [2015] 8
SCR 78 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balawant Rao
Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 : [1989] 2 SCR 454 – held
inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 8 SCR 78
referred to
Para 4.1
[1989] 2 SCR 454
held inapplicable
Para 5.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6069
of 2012.
From the Judgment

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