NARAYAN S MOHITE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petition (SCA No. 3429 of 1992) invoking Article 226 of the Constitution is filed with a prayer to set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 13.5.1992 and 15.5.1992 whereby the State Government in its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department had suspended the resolution of the Standing Committee of respondent No.2 pursuant to which respondent No.2 had invoked the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ("BPMC Act" for short) informing the petitioner that he had incurred disqualification for being a municipal servant. By an amendment after the first interim order dated 1.7.1992, the petitioner has also challenged the decision dated 6.8.1992 of the State Government rendered after the hearing accorded to the petitioner by the interim order.

(2.) Although the litigation has a chequered history of several previous litigations and interim orders which were carried up to the Supreme Court, the relevant facts for deciding the issues before this Court are that the petitioner was serving under respondent No.2- Baroda Municipal Corporation ("BMC" for short) since 16.8.1969 till he was suspended on 27.7.1988 pending departmental inquiry on the allegation that he had defrauded the Corporation in collusion with his brother in the contract of supplying newspapers and magazines. After chargesheet and regular departmental inquiry, the finding of the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of several acts of misconduct was accepted and an order dated 1.10.1990 was passed to remove him from service.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Pradip Patel, appearing for the petitioner, argued on the basis of a fresh affidavit-in-rejoinder that the State Government had no power under Section 451 of the BPMC Act to interfere with the orders passed by the appellate authority under Section 56(4) of the Act. That the powers exercised by the Standing Committee under Section 56(4) of the Act were in the realm of the disciplinary action under Section 56 of the Act and the order for imposition of some lesser penalty made by the appellate authority was conclusive; meaning that it cannot be carried further to the State Government for exercise of the powers under Section 451 of the Act. It was submitted that the powers of the State Government under Section 451 of the Act were for controlling the administrative actions of the Municipal Corporation and not for interfering with the disciplinary action/s taken under Section 56 of the Act. He also submitted that the Standing Committee of the BMC had passed an appropriate resolution after giving to the Commissioner of the Corporation an opportunity of being heard and the State Government was not justified in setting at naught the resolutions of the Standing Committee in exercise of the powers under Section 451 of the Act which are for control of the Municipal Corporation as a whole.