MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAHURI Vs. GOVIND DAGADU SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 21st November, 1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri, in Regular Civil Suit No. 570 of 1982 whereby he granted an interim injunction staying the order of suspension of the petitioner defendant and the same order was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar on 29th September, 1984 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 327 of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner No 1 defendant No. 1 Council and the petitioner No.2-defendant No. 2 Chief Officer appointed the respondant-plaintiff as temporary Sanitary Inspector and Food Inspector with effect from 5th January, 1973 in the pay-scale of Rs. 145-5-185-E.B. 6-233-7-240 plus the dearness allowance as per the rules framed by the petitioner No.1-Council. The order of appointment is dated 3rd January, 1973. It is at.Ex. 19. On 18th March ,1973 the President of the petitioner No. 1-Council addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra, Bombay-51, for appointment of the respondent as Food Inspector by issuing necessary notification under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As per that communication, the State Government in the Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department issued a notification dated 19th May, 1973 whereby the respondent was appointed as Food Inspector and the local area within the limits of the petitioner No. 1-Council was assigned to him for his functioning as Food Inspector. The petitioner No. 1-Council, on receiving complains against the respondent, instituted a departmental inquiry against him and by order dated 19th October, 1983 suspended him with effect from 20th October, 1983. The respondent challenged the suspension order by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 570 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge. He applied for an ex parte ad interim injunction staying the suspension order, but an ad interim injunction was not granted and his application for injunction, after hearing both parties, was granted by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 21st November, 1983. The learned Civil Judge thereby restrained the petitioners from giving effect to the suspension order dated 19th October, 1983. The petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 327 of 1983 to the District Court, Ahmednagar. It was heard by the learned Assistant Judge, and by his judgment and order dated 29th September, 1984 he dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners Municipal Council, Rahuri and its Chief Officer contends that the learned trial Judge and the learned Appellate Judge were not right in finding that the respondent plaintiff prima facie is a Government employee and not a municipal employee and hence the petitioner No. 1 Council had no right to hold a departmental inquiry and to suspend him. The learned Counsel contends that the respondent was appointed as Sanitary Inspector and Food Inspector of the petitioner No. 1 Council on 3rd January, 1973 and thereafter on its recommendations he was empowered by the State Government by issuing the notification dated 19th May, 1973 to act as Food Inspector for the local area of the petitioner No. 1 Council. He submits that after the appointment of the respondent as Sanitary Inspector and Food Inspector with effect from 5th January, 1973 the petitioner No. 1 Council moved the Government for creation of the post of Food Inspector, and the Government by order dated 28th March, 1973 created the post of the Food Inspector vide Ex. 19/2, and again on the recommendations of the Council appointed the respondent by the notification dated 19th May, 1973 as Food Inspector. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent does not cease to be an employee of the petitioner No. 1-Council by his appointment as Food Inspector under section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and that the Council retains the authority to hold a departmental inquiry against the respondent and to impose sentence even of dismissal from service on him. He referred to sections 75 and 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. Section 76 of the said Act reads as follows :