MANEKJI NAOROJI BALSARA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been fully and very . well argued, and accordingly we prefer to give our judgments while the arguments are still fresh in our minds.

(2.) The suit is one brought by Mr. Manekji Naoroji Balsara against the Municipal Corporation for wrongful dismissal in 1924. The suit did not come on for trial till December 13, 1928, due probably to the insufficient number of Judges to transact the ordinary business of this Court. Issues Nos. 1 and 8 were then selected as preliminary issues to be decided by the Court. They were, No. (1): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask this Court to review the decision of the Standing Committee and the Municipal Commissioner that the plaintiff had been guilty of such misconduct as to warrant his dismissal ? And No. (8): Whether the plaintiff had every opportunity of meeting the charge against him ? The learned Judge answered the first issue in the negative and issue No. 8 in the affirmative, and dismissed the suit with costs. From that judgment on these two preliminary issues the present appeal is brought.

(3.) Now the plaintiff, I should explain, is an educated man, an L. M. & S. of Bombay University, and 13. P. H., Cambridge, and he joined the Municipal service- in 1907. At the dates in question, namely, in 1924, he was Acting Health Officer and we are told that he was on a salary of Rs. 400 plus Rs. 90 local allowance plus Rs. 150 motor allowance per month. His appointment and dismissal were regulated by the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888. Counsel on both sides before us expressly admitted that he had been appointed to his acting appointment by the Standing Committee of the Municipality, and that accordingly it was the Standing Committee who had the power of dismissing him under Section 83(1) of the Act. I draw special attention to this point because for some time during the argument I was under the mistaken impression,-which the learned Judge in the trial Court appears to have shared,-that the power of dismissal lay with the Municipal Commissioner, but that as the monthly emoluments of this officer exceeded Rs. 300 he could only be dismissed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Standing Committee under Section 83(2)(a). That was not so. It was for the Standing Committee to dismiss him. 2. Very shortly stated, what took place was this. A certain complaint was made to the Municipal Commissioner that the officer in question had been endeavouring to obtain bribes in the course of his employment. The Municipal Commissioner thereupon requested the Standing Committee to delegate two of their members to assist him in making an enquiry on the point. The Committee accordingly delegated two of their members, Mr. Haveliwala and Mr. Jamnadas Mehta,-both advocates on the Original Side of this High Court and also barristers. I may add that Mr. Haveliwala also at one time occupied the important position of President of the Tribunal of Appeal under the Land Acquisition Act. An enquiry was subsequently held by the Commissioner, and he examined certain witnesses in the presence of the accused in relation to the matters complained of. He also at the same time examined witnesses on another charge of bribery against the Factory Inspector H. D. Patel in relation to the same premises, but with reference to an incident that took place prior to the plaintiff receiving his acting appointment. 3. Unfortunately, Mr. Haveliwala and Mr. Jamnadas Mehta were unable to attend the hearing so far as the actual taking of oral evidence was concerned. But at the end of the day, they met and read the notes of evidence, and also discussed the matter with the Municipal Commissioner. Then the Municipal Commissioner made his report. That was presented to the Standing Committee, and they in their turn, with the report before them, heard the plaintiff once more in "support of what he had to say and came to the conclusion that the recommendation of the Commissioner that he should be dismissed on the ground of the charge against him being proved was correct. That decision of the Standing Committee was arrived at on May 21, 1924, but it was not till September that the plaintiff took any steps. He then caused his solicitors to write the letter of. September 10, 1924, Ex-habit No. 1, asking for copies of all statements in the course of the enquiry. This was followed up by a formal petition setting out his case, which is Exhibit No. 2 in the case, and was presented to the Corporation on September 22, 1924.