PRAMOD VISHWASRAO GHATGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 56 (4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act ("act" for short ). Briefly, the circumstances of the case are that the petitioner was working in the transport undertaking of the Pune Municipal Corporation, as Chief Engineer. He was supposed to look after the maintenance, repairs and preventive maintenance of buses of the Corporation. On 20th April, 1982 the petitioner was served with a memorandum alleging therein that buses are not properly sent on road as per required schedule and a number of buses are breaking down on the road as a result of which inconvenience is being caused to the commuters besides financial loss to the Corporation. It was alleged that the over-all functioning of the petitioners department was not satisfactory. The petitioner was told to improve the functioning of the workshop. He was further told that improvement must be shown within 15 days. It appears that thereafter a report dated 28th May, 1982 was submitted by the Transport Manager to the Secretary, Transport Committee, wherein again it was alleged that the petitioner was negligent in his duties. It was alleged that as a result of the petitioners negligence the buses were not properly coming on road and were breaking down on the road and, therefore, the petitioner should be punished after inquiry. The Transport Committee acting upon the report of the Transport Manager passed resolution dated 31st May, 1982, whereby it was decided to hold inquiry against the petitioner and it was further decided to suspend the petitioner pending inquiry. It was further resolved that the Transport Manager should file charge-sheet against the petitioner and submit the findings within three months. Accordingly, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was extremely negligent in duty, committed breach of the rules and regulations of the department, deliberately disobeyed just orders passed by the higher officers and reported late on duty for more than four times during a month. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 2nd August, 1982, denying the charges framed against him.

(2.) THE inquiry against the petitioner was first conducted by one Shri Banker, officer from the Corporation. After some time Shri Banker quit and Shri Mulik was appointed as the inquiry officer. However, ultimately the Transport Manager Shri M. B. Patil himself was appointed as the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted his findings dated 27th July, 1984, holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. It is required to be stated that no reasons are given by the inquiry officer for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The inquiry officer in his report merely stated that all the six charges are proved beyond doubt. The inquiry officer observed that the petitioner cannot be considered as a faithful officer of the department and also suggested that if the petitioner is not dismissed then he would involve the department into a situation where other workers would be encouraged and there would be scope for insubordination. The entire matter was then placed before the transport authority being the disciplinary authority for taking necessary action in the matter along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The Transport Committee by its resolution dated 10th August, 1984, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service with continuity of service and further directed that the period of suspension should be treated as period on duty.

(3.) IT seems that the matter was again reopened on a report of the Transport Manager, Shri Patil. The Transport Manager, who also acted as the inquiry officer stated in his report that as per rules it was necessary for the Committee to have given a show cause notice to the petitioner and the act of the Transport Committee of not issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner was illegal and therefore the Transport Committee should reconsider its decision and should issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Acting upon the said report, the Committee decided to cancel its resolution dated 10th August, 1984 and directed issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Strangely, even the Transport Manager issued notice dated 6th September, 1984 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service for misconduct. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice by letter dated 26th September, 1984. The Transport Committee at its meeting held on 17th October, 1984 passed resolution No. 354 dated 17th October, 1984 directing dismissal of the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the Transport Manager issued order of dismissal on 19th October, 1984.