9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. 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 ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of dismissal passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation was challenged by the Respondent before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Before the learned Single Judge, the Respondent challenged the inquiry report as well as the dismissal order on merits and also on the ground that the Commissioner, who passed the order of dismissal was not having any jurisdiction and/or authority to pass a dismissal order and impose the major penalty. 2.4. It was the case on behalf of the Respondent before the learned Single Judge that the Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 passed by the General Board of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation did not empower the Municipal Corporation to initiate and/or to conclude the disciplinary proceedings for the alleged irregularities or negligence in the present case. 2.5. The petition was opposed by the Corporation on merits as well as on the authority of the Commissioner. It was submitted that under Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998, the Commissioner had passed the final order of penalty. It was contended that the delegation covers all kinds of works including purchases and other execution of work in which it is found that the officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court has directed that the Appellants shall continue to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Respondent w.e.f. 01.04.2012. It is reported that the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month thereafter is being paid to the Respondent. 4. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants has vehemently submitted that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in observing that the Commissioner had no power and/or authority to pass the order of dismissal against the Respondent. It is submitted that the Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 authorised the Commissioner to pass the final order of penalty and the said delegation covers all kinds of works including purchases and other execution of work in which it is found that the officer has committed irregularity and/or had acted in a negligent manner. 4.1. It is submitted that in any case, thereafter, the decision of the Commissioner to dismiss the Respondent from service was placed before the General Board and the General Board of the Corporation vide its Resolution No. 56 dated 15.12.1998 as amended by subsequent Resolution dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
