2023 (5) TMI 1416 - SC - Indian Laws

Authority of Commissioner of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation to dismiss the Respondent from service based on the powers conferred by Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that after departmental proceedings and on conclusion of the inquiry, the charges and the misconduct alleged against the Respondent have been proved, which has been even confirmed by the learned Single judge. However, thereafter, solely on the ground that the Commissioner, who passed the order of dismissal had no power/authority to impose the penalty of dismissal on the Respondent, who, at the relevant time, was serving as City Engineer, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of dismissal with all consequential benefits and the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench. 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 learned 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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pannalal Choudhury 2015 (7) TMI 1238 - SUPREME COURT 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. Conclusion - The Commissioner's initial lack of authority was cured by the General Board's ratification, thereby reinstating the dismissal order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the Commissioner of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation had the authority to dismiss the Respondent from service based on the powers conferred by Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998.
• Whether the subsequent ratification by the General Board of the Corporation could validate the dismissal order initially passed by the Commissioner without authority.
• Whether the dismissal order was void ab initio and thus incapable of being ratified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Authority of the Commissioner

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around the interpretation of Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998, which purportedly conferred powers on the Commissioner to take disciplinary action.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the language of Resolution No. 51 and found that it authorized the Commissioner to take action only concerning irregularities in purchases, not other misconduct.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the Resolution specifically mentioned irregularities in purchases, limiting the Commissioner's authority to that context.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the resolution's terms to the facts, concluding that the Commissioner's dismissal order exceeded the granted authority.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued that the resolution covered all irregularities, but the Court found this interpretation unsupported by the resolution's text.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority to dismiss the Respondent under the resolution's terms.

Issue 2: Ratification by the General Board

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of ratification and its applicability to administrative decisions were central, with references to prior cases like Pannalal Choudhury.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered whether the General Board's ratification could cure the initial lack of authority.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The General Board ratified the Commissioner's decision through subsequent resolutions.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the doctrine of ratification, finding that the General Board's ratification retroactively validated the Commissioner's decision.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued that a void decision cannot be ratified, citing Marathwada University. The Court distinguished this case, noting that the original decision was not void ab initio.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the ratification by the General Board validated the dismissal order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand... all the irregularities complained of by the Respondent... 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."
• Core Principles Established: The principle that a decision initially lacking authority can be ratified by a competent authority, thereby curing any procedural defects.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court held that the Commissioner's initial lack of authority was cured by the General Board's ratification, thereby reinstating the dismissal order. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside.

In summary, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the authority of the Commissioner to dismiss an employee and the subsequent ratification by the General Board, ultimately upholding the validity of the dismissal order through the doctrine of ratification.