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 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 the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided. The court should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility. A broader interpretation which would bring about an effective result, will have to be preferred. Applying this principle, it is clear that subsection (9) of Section 2, Sections 39A and 56 of the MMC Act will have to be read in reference to each other. They cannot be read in isolation. [Paras 37 and 38][471-D-G]
2 If the interpretation as placed by the High Court is accepted, it will lead to an absurd and anomalous situation wherein on one hand, the respondent No.1, who was selected and appointed by the State Government for the KDM Corporation, though would be an employee of the KDM Corporation, the KDM Corporation would not be in a position to initiate departmental proceedings against him, even if he is found to have indulged into serious misconduct. On the other hand, since the respondent No.1 is not an employee of the State Government, the State Government also would not be in a position to initiate any departmental proceedings against him. [Para 44][473-G-H; 474A] Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and Others (1985) 3 SCC 103 : [1985] 3 SCR 491 ; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 707 ; Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others (1997) 4 SCC 435 : [1997] 2 SCR 953 ;
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 387; Mahadeo Prasad Bais (Dead) v. Income Tax Officer ‘A’ Ward, Gorakhpur and Another (1991) 4 SCC 560 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 9; K.P.Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another (1981) 4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR 629 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 91 : [1986] 2 SCR 927 and Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay and Others (2021)
10 SCC 306 – relied on.
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.Union of India through its Secretary and Another (2015) 7 SCC 291 : [2015] 2 SCR 415 and State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government (Home) v. Promod Kumar, IPS and Another (2018) 17 SCC 677 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.