PADMAKANT MOTILAL VORATHE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL BOROUGH Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL BOROUGHPADMAKANT MOTILAL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals Nos. 931 and 968 of 1940 arise from a suit instituted by the plaintiff Padrnakant Motilal Vora, who prior to his suspension was a Sub-Overseer or Zilla Inspector in the Ahmedabad Municipality, for a declaration that he was wrongly and improperly dismissed from service by the Municipality and for a direction to that body that, he should be reinstated in service and paid his salary for the period of his suspension till reinstatement. The charges against him were that he in his official capacity was guilty of submitting false reports on three occasions in regard to certain building works within the municipal area, and that he was generally careless and negligent in his duties. The plaintiff was suspended upon the report of his superior by the Chief Officer of the Municipality on January 11, 1933, and, with the approval of the Standing Committee and after proper enquiry, was ultimately dismissed by the Municipality on June 23, 1933. His case is that in the course of the inquiry by the officer deputed for the purpose by the Chief Officer of the Municipality he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as required by the rules of the Municipality, and that the inquiry in itself was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as evidence was not tendered in his presence and he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have concurrently found that proper charges were framed, that the main body of evidence in support of those charges which consisted of documents on the record of the Municipality was shown to the plaintiff and made available to him for scrutiny, that according to his admissions the inquiry was held in his presence, that the documents required in his defence were kept ready for his use before the inquiry officer, and that in consequence sufficient opportunity was given to him to defend himself. But the Courts below thought that although the dismissal was right and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to damages on that account, he was at least entitled to his pay during the period of his suspension. The trial Court founded its conclusion upon what, it believed to be an admission of the claim, in that respect contained in the written statement of the Municipality. The lower appellate Court thought that there was no such admission, and that a wrong impression was created on the trial Court by a clerical mistake in the written statement. But at the same time it held that an officer under suspension must still be regarded 'as in the service of the employer although not on duty' and that in the absence of any special rules to the contrary the Municipality must pay its servants during the period of their suspension. Accordingly a decree for Rs. 374-6-0 was passed in the plaintiff's favour. That amount was fixed in slight modification of the trial Court's decree for Rs. 370. The rest of the claim of the plaintiff in regard to the declaration and consequential relief was dismissed. Against that decree both the plaintiff and the Municipality have filed separate appeals.

(3.) THAT the Municipality has the power to suspend its servants cannot be doubted and was not disputed by the plaintiff. What he disputed was that he was suspended without just grounds and that the subsequent procedure in regard to his dismissal was improper and unfair. Under Section 58 (f) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act there is provision for making rules delegating to the officers designated in the rules the power to suspend or dismiss any officer or servant. Section 34(2) of the Act, which defines the powers and duties of the Chief Officer, provides that the Chief Officer may suspend or dismiss any municipal servant whose salary does not exceed Rs. 30 subject to certain provisions of the Act and subject further to the provisions of the rules for the time being in force, any other municipal officer or servant, not being the health officer, engineer or auditor of the Municipality. The relevant rule is Rule 109 of the Ahmedabad Municipal Rules. It says:- The Chief Officer shall have power to suspend any other Municipal Officer except the Health Officer, Municipal Engineer, Water Works Engineer and Drainage Engineer in anticipation of the orders of the Municipality to be obtained through the Controlling Committee.