9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipal Corporation and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10682 of 1998 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said application preferred by the Respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the dismissal order passed by the Commissioner, the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the Respondent herein, at the relevant time, was discharging his duty as City Engineer of the Appellant - Municipal Corporation. That for certain execution of work and construction of roads within the Municipal Corporation area, it was found that the Respondent had committed cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 has committed irregularity or had acted in a negligent manner. It was further submitted that eventually, the General Body of the Corporation vide its Resolution No. 56 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration. In view of the dismissal of appeal preferred by the Corporation, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent did not press the Letters Patent Appeal No. 752 of 2006. 2.9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No. 726 of 2006 and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing and setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Commissioner, the Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 3. While issuing the notice dated 26.03.2012, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. However, thereafter vide order dated 24.08.2012, while granting leave, this Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said defect, in any case, can be said to have been cured. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of National Institute of Technology and Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669 (paras 13 and 33). 5. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 5.1. It is submitted that insofar as the Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 is concerned, it conferred power upon the Commissioner to take action with respect to any irregularity in case of purchases only and not with respect to any other misconduct. It is submitted that, therefore, the decision of the Commissioner to dismiss the Respondent from service was void ab initio and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed and held as under: 33. Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16-8-1996 was passed by the Principal and Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor was there any authorisation given by the BoG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BoG in their meeting held on 22-8- 1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal and Secretary in passing the Respondent's dismissal order dated 16-8- 1996, all the irregularities complained of by the Respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal and Secretary to dismiss him stood ratifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
