SIRSI MUNICIPALITY BY ITS PRESIDENT SIRSI versus CECELIA KOM FRANCIS TELLIS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 18-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

348 
SIRSI MUNICIPALITY BY ITS PRESIDENT SIRSI 
v. 
CECELIA KOM FRANCIS TELLIS 
January 18, 1973 
(S. M. SIKRI, C. J., A. N. RAY, D. G. 'PALEKAR, M. H. BEG AND 
S, N. DWIVEDI, JJ.J 
Bon1hay District Municipal Act 1901-Rules nuule under 
s. 46--
Rults 143 11uindatory-Disn1issal of employee without reasonable oppor~ 
tunity .to show cause l'oid and illegal-State authorities 1nust cct 'within 
Jin1its of statuton,.i poa·ers-Public_ en1ploy11ient distinguished front p'ri· 
"·ate en1p/oy1nent. 
The respondent was an employee of the -appellant municipality a!' 
a midwife in its hospital. 
On the death of a patient in the hospital an 
enquiry was held by the Civil Surgeon who found that the death was 
not <luc to the negligence of the hospital staff. 
Thereafter a committee 
appointed by the municipality held an enquiry and made 
its 
report. 
The President of the municipality gave notice to the respondent that 
as she was responsible for the death of the patient in question due to 
her :negligence she. should appear before the Municipal Council at its 
meeting at 4 p.m. on 25 March 
195~ and give her explanation. 
She 
s-ent her reply denying her negligence and also stated that if It was 
necessary for her to explain anything she should be asked in writing. 
She did not appear before the Council at the appointed time. 
When 
she did appear at 6 p.m. she insisted that the charge against her should 
be in writing. 
The municipality dis~ssed her from service. The _res· 
pondent thereupon filed a suit for a declaration that the resolution of 
the municipality dismissing her from 
service 
was 
void. 
Her 
fir.st 
contention was that Rule 143 of the Ruk" framed by the municipality 
had been violated as she was !liOt given an opponunity 
of defending 
herself against the chafge. 
Her second contention was that the resolu-
tion was passed by the municipality on a day when the question of 
her dismissal was not on the agenda. The 
High 
Court upheld 
the 
findings of the trial court and the first Appellate court that the 
res· 
pQndent was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend herself anJ 
thus r. 143 was violated and on this ground upheld 
the 
declaration 
that she was deemed to have continued in service from the 
date of 
dismissal to the date of the suit. 
In appeal by. special leave before this 
Court the municipality contended that the respondent was not entitled 
to any declaration and that if the dismissal was wrongful the remedy ·lay 
in damages. 
HELD: (per 
Sikri, 
C.J ., 
Ray, 
Palekar 
and 
Dwivedi, 
JJ.) 
(i) Tennination or dismissal of what is described as a pure contract of 
master and servant is not declared to be a nullity 
however 
wrongful 
or iIJ.egal it may be. 
The reason is that dismissal in breach of contract 
is remedied by damages. 
[353F-GJ 
In the case of servant of the State or of local authorities, courts 
have declared in appropriate cases the dismissal to be invalid 
if 
the 
dismissal is contra'rv to the rules of natural justice or if the dismissal 
or if- the dismissal iS in violation of the provisions of the stattife. Apart 
fram the intervention of statute there would not be a, declaration 
of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SIRS! MUNIC. v. KOM FRANCIS (Ray, 1.) 
349 
nullity in the case of termination or dismissal of a setva!nt of the Stat-I! 
or of other local authoriti"' or statutory bodies. 
[3530-H] 
The courts keep the State and the public authorities 
within 
the 
limits of their statutory powers. 
Where a State or a public authority dis· 
misses an employee in violation of the mandatory procedural require· 
ments or on grounds which are not sanctioned ol' supported by statute 
the courts may exercise, jurisdiction to declare the act of dismissal to' 
be a ;nullity. 
Such implication of public employment is thus distinguish-
ed 
from 
private· employment in pure cases of master and .servant. 
l353H,354B] 
This 
Court 
in 
its 
decisions 
has 
held 
that the dismissal or 
termination 
of 
the 
services 
of 
employees 
without 
complying 
with the provisions of statute or scheme or Order is invalid. This Court 
has questioned the orders of dismissal and granted appropriate declara-
tions. 
[356C-DJ 
Executh·e L'o111111iltee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Lbnit-
<'d. v. 
l~hatulra Kiran Tyagi, [1970} 2 S.C.R. 250 a:nd Indian Airli1u•\' 
Corpora.tio11 v. Suklufeo Rai, [1971] 2 S.C.C. 192, distinguished. 
S. R. Tewari v. District' Boar,/, Agra, [1964) 
3 S.C.R. 56, 
L

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