(1.) The petitioner assails the order of the Government rescinding the resolution passed by the Standing Committee allowing the appeal of the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was imposed penalty of treating the suspension period as earned leave and also bringing the petitioner on the basic pay. The petitioner assailed the said order before the Standing Committee U/Sec. 56(4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (now the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act) (for short "Said Act"). The appeal of the petitioner was allowed and resolution came to be passed by the Standing committee on 03.10.1997 allowing the appeal and setting aside the punishment. The learned counsel further submits that, after seven years the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad moved the Government for rescinding the said resolution. The Government on 15.03.2005 rescinded the resolution dated 03.10.1997. This Court admitted the writ petition and stayed the order of the Government. The petitioner stood retired on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order of the Government is without adhering to the principles of natural justice. No notice was issued to the petitioner before taking such decision by the Government. The order of the Government is prejudicial to the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Standing Committee and the order of the Standing Committee by way of resolution was sought to be set aside, the Government was expected to hear the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that, the order is bad in law.
(3.) Mr. Bankar Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation submits that, the charges against the petitioner were proved. Considering all these aspects and to maintain discipline, the Commissioner had forwarded the proposal to the Government to rescind the resolution of the Standing Committee setting aside punishment imposed upon the petitioner.