B K SHUKLA Vs. NATVERLAL RATANJI KEVAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant herein. Chief Officer of Billimora Nagarpalika came forward with Special Civil Application No. 822 of 1983 questioning a resolution passed by the Municipality by 2/3 majority under Sec. 48 of the Gujarat Municipalities dismissing him from the post of Chief Officer. The learned single Judge of this High Court after considering all the points raised by Mr. Raval learned Counsel appearing for the appellant herein dismissed the Special Civil Application and hence this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Raval learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised five contentions before us. The first contention is that the President of the Nagarpalika has no power to issue chargesheet against the appellant herein. Since the Municipality is the appointing and removing authority 85 per the provisions of the Statute the original chargesheet issued by the President calling for explanation from the appellant herein is itself vitiated. Meeting this contention we are of the view that there is no substance in this contention. Three chargesheets were given alleging various mal-practices on the part of the Chief Officer. These malpractices were committed in the Municipality by the Chief Officer and the President who is the head of the Municipality has issued the chargesheets. It is admitted by Mr. Raval that necessary opportunity was given to the appellant herein and the enquiry report thereof is not vitiated by any procedural defects nor bit by the principles of natural justice. The only contention Mr. Raval wants to press is that the President cannot issue the chargesheet but only the Municipality can do so. Considering the facts of the case and also the fact that the appellant was made known that it is the Municipality that is questioning the corrupt practice of the appellant the argument that the chargesheet are vitiated cannot be pressed into service. Hence we do not think there is any substance in the first contention raised by Mr. Raval.

(3.) The second contention is that the resolution passed suffers from mala fides inasmuch as the President who is bent upon removing the Chief Officer has managed to have the resolution passed somehow or other. For this contention Mr. Raval pointed out the three adjourned meetings and ultimately passing the resolution when there was two-third majority. It is also contended by Mr. Raval that the President who is biased against the appellant participated in the meeting and voted. Section 48 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act reads as follows: