TUKARAM NARAYAN KAMBLE Vs. PRESIDENT KUUNDWAD MUNICIPAL COUNCILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case instituted Regular civil Suit No. 56 of 1976 against the President, Kurundwad Municipal council. He prayed for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 2-th September, 1975, passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipality be declared null and void and prayed for reinstatement in service and for arrears of salary.

(2.) THE appellant, who was the original plaintiff, had joined the services of the Municipal Council, as an Octroi Clerk, on 1st October, 1956. After one and half years of service, he was confirmed as a permanent employee. According to the respondent the plaintiff had committed various acts of misconduct as are set out by them in the written statement, that he was guilty of improper behaviour and consequently that he was served with a show cause notice. He was asked to remain present before the Standing Committee and it is contended that he admitted his misconduct whereupon an order dismissing him from service came to be passed. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present suit and his contention basically was that the procedure prescribed by law had not been followed before imposing a major penalty of dismissal and furthermore that the charges alleged against him were unjustified and he contended that as often happens he was the victim of local politics and had incurred to wrath of the President and was therefore victimised. The learned trial judge heard the suit and dismissed the same. He, inter alia, held among other things that the suit itself was not maintainable in so far as it had been filed beyond the statutory period of six months from the date on which the cause of action had arisen and secondly:on the ground that it was not open to the plaintiff to sue the President in his individual capacity. Against the order of dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred Appeal no. 284 of 1979 to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur. The learned District Judge upheld the view expressed by the learned Trial judge. He did however in the concluding part of the judgment accept the position that the requisite procedure i. e. necessary requirements of all disciplinary proceedings had not been complied with and furthermore that there was justification in the plea of the plaintiff that he was a victim of political rivalries. However, since the suit was held not to be maintainable, no reliefs were granted. It is against this appellate order, that the present second Appeal has been filed.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the Appellant, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel on his behalf has very vehemently attacked both the judgments on the ground that the rules of natural justice have been flagrantly flouted in this case and unfortunately the trial Court and the Appeal Court have upheld technicalities and lost sight of the basic issue. Mr. Shinde, pointed out- to me that the appellant who at the relevant time was about 45 years old and who had put in a lengthy tenure of service, was accused of various acts of misconduct which were never established. Mr. Shinde submits that it is unthinkable as far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, for a dismissal order to be passed on an admission of guilt. It is his basic submission that where a major penalty is likely to be imposed or in the present case where a major punishment of dismissal has in fact been imposed on the employee that it is condition precedent for a fulfledged inquiry to be conducted whereby the charges are fully substantiated-He submits that admittedly, as held by the Courts below, beyond a show-cause notice, no charge-sheet was served on the appellant nor was any enquiry conducted, no finding was recorded to the effect that the charges are established, he was not heard on the question of quantum of punish-ment and therefore, he submits that the entire action will have to be struck down.