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 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.
Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balawant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 : [1989] 2 SCR 454 – held inapplicable.
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.