9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1529 - SC - Indian LawsCompetence of KDM Corporation to suspend respondent No.1 Sanjay Gajanan Gharat - direction to KDM Corporation to reinstate him forthwith to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner - whether the respondent No.1 though an employee of the KDM Corporation, can neither be suspended nor any departmental proceedings can be initiated against him by the KDM Corporation, since his selection and appointment was done by the State Government? HELD THAT - It could be seen that under Section 39A of the MMC Act, though the AMC will exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties and functions of the Commissioner, the same shall be subject to the control of the Commissioner. No doubt, that the AMC would be subject to the same liabilities, restrictions and terms and conditions of service, to which the Commissioner of the Corporation is subjected. However, the legislative intent is clear that the powers to be exercised by AMCs would be subject to the control of the Commissioner - The legislative intent would also be gathered from subsection (9) of Section 2 of the MMC Act. It could be seen that in the definition of the Commissioner , though an acting Commissioner appointed under Section 39 of the MMC Act has been included, an AMC appointed under Section 39A of the MC Act has not been included. Clause (a) of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 56 of the MMC Act has been amended simultaneously by an amendment, which brought Section 39A into the statute. As such, the term post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner cannot be construed in a narrow compass. Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 56 of the MMC Act would also include the post of AMC. As such, the Commissioner would be a competent authority insofar as the post of AMC is concerned. Likewise, though the powers of the Commissioner to suspend any officer or servant except a Transport Manager being a Government Officer on deputation or the officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act are without any restriction, when such suspension is with regard to a Transport Manager or an officer appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act, though the Commissioner is empowered to suspend them, such a suspension has to be reported to the Corporation along with the reasons thereof. Such a suspension shall come to an end, if not confirmed by the Corporation within a period of six months from the date of such suspension. In the case of PHILIPS INDIA LTD. VERSUS LABOUR COURT, MADRAS ORS. 1985 (3) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT , this Court had an occasion to decide the rate of overtime wages as mentioned in Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. This Court found that for finding the minimum rate of overtime wages as mentioned in Section 31 of the said Act, it will have to be interpreted in the light of the provisions contained in Section 14(1) read with proviso to Section 31 of the said Act - It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the Statute must be read as a whole. It has been held that this rule of statutory construction is so firmly established that it is variously styled as elementary rule . It has been held that for finding out the true meaning of one part of a statute, a reference will have to be made to another part of the statute and that will best express meaning of the makers. It is more than well settled that 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. The finding of the High Court that in view of Section 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 Section 56 and sub section (9) of Section 2 of the MMC Act - the High Court has totally erred in setting aside the suspension and the departmental proceedings initiated against respondent No.1. The effect of the impugned judgment is that the respondent No. 1, who has been, prima facie, found to be involved in a serious misconduct, has been left scot free without requiring to face any departmental proceedings and directed to be reinstated in services. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of KDM Corporation to suspend the respondent. 2. Authority to initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent. 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (MMC Act). 4. Prolonged suspension of the respondent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of KDM Corporation to Suspend the Respondent: The High Court held that the KDM Corporation was not the competent authority to suspend the respondent, as he was appointed by the State Government under Section 39A of the MMC Act. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 39A allows the State Government to create posts and appoint suitable persons, but these posts are specifically for the respective Municipal Corporations. Once appointed, the respondent became an employee of the KDM Corporation. The Court emphasized that under Section 56 of the MMC Act, the Commissioner has the power to suspend any municipal officer or servant, pending an order of the Corporation, and this includes the respondent who was appointed as AMC. 2. Authority to Initiate Departmental Inquiry Against the Respondent: The High Court quashed the departmental inquiry initiated by the KDM Corporation, stating that only the State Government could initiate such proceedings. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Commissioner of the KDM Corporation has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent under Section 56 of the MMC Act. The Court highlighted that the legislative intent was to empower the Commissioner to control and discipline officers like the AMC, subject to the approval of the Corporation. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions of the MMC Act: The Supreme Court conducted a detailed interpretation of the MMC Act, particularly Sections 2(9), 39A, and 56. It emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of these provisions to avoid absurd and anomalous situations. The Court noted that the AMC, though exercising powers similar to the Commissioner, is subject to the control of the Commissioner. The term "competent authority" in Section 56 includes the Commissioner, who can suspend and initiate disciplinary actions against officers like the AMC, provided the suspension is reported to and confirmed by the Corporation within six months. 4. Prolonged Suspension of the Respondent: The respondent argued that his prolonged suspension was unjustified, citing the Supreme Court's judgments in Ajay Kumar Choudhary and Promod Kumar, IPS. The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle against prolonged suspensions but noted that the respondent himself had refused to participate in the departmental inquiry. The Court directed that the departmental proceedings be completed within four months, and the respondent would remain under suspension until their conclusion. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, reinstating the KDM Corporation's authority to suspend and conduct a departmental inquiry against the respondent. The Court ordered the completion of the inquiry within four months, maintaining the respondent's suspension until then. This interpretation ensures the workability of the MMC Act and avoids any legislative vacuum or absurdity.
|
