1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2007
Dnyaneshwar Sopanrao Bhandare,
aged about 55 years,
occupation - Service,
residing at Plot No. 78, in front of
Nagpur District Central Cooperative
Bank, Hudkeshwar Road,
Rajapeth, Nagpurig ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Y.B. Mandpe, AGP for respondent No. 1.
Shri C.S. Kaptan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.
.....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
F.M. REIS, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : OCT. 07, 2009.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: NOV. 06, 2009.
JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Writ Petition is to be disposed of finally at the stage of
admission itself as per orders dated 12th June 2008. Accordingly,
we have heard Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and
Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 for some
time and then they sought leave to place on record written notes
of arguments. After the written notes were exchanged, the
matter was fixed twice for oral hearing and ultimately was closed
for judgment as no arguments could be advanced. As the matter
was fixed for final hearing, we formally issue Rule and make it
returnable forthwith.
2. We have gone through the written notes of arguments
filed by the petitioner as also by his employer Respondents No. 2
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
3
& 3. Shri Mandpe, AGP for respondent No.1 has orally
supported the appellate order passed by Respondent No.1 – State
Government.
3. The challenge in writ petition is to the order dated
28.10.2005 passed by Respondent No.3 – Additional
Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation imposing
punishment of his reduction to lowest stage in pay scale of Rs.
4000-6000 and withholding his annual increments thereafter
permanently for five years with cumulative effect. The period of
his suspension pending enquiry has been regularised as
suspension period only. This order was challenged by the
petitioner in appeal before Respondent No.1 – State Government
under the provisions of Section 387(3) of City of Nagpur
Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Corporation
Act). That appeal came to be dismissed by the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development on 30th May 2007 but the
punishment was made subject to approval of General Body of
Nagpur Corporation in view of Section 50(1) thereof. These two
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
4
orders are assailed in present writ petition.
4. The petitioner is a Junior Inspector in Assessment
department of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. His basic
contention is that the discontinuation from service of one Shri
Gharde was never informed to him and hence he could not have
been blamed for recovery of 494 assessment files from Shri
Gharde. Shri Gharde was employed on daily wages. He has
further contended that those 494 files were never received by
him from record room. He has also relied upon similar enquiry
conducted against one Shri A.U. Bahadure, who was exonerated
by Respondent No.3 only because criminal offence could not be
made out and police submitted discharge report under Section
169 of Criminal Procedure Code, to Judicial Magistrate First
Class. Shri Gharde was one of the accused in that matter.
Because Shri Gharde could not be prosecuted, departmental
enquiry against Shri Bahadure was dropped. The petitioner
claimed same treatment. He has further contended that the
punishment imposed upon him is major punishment which could
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
5
have been inflicted only by General Body and hence initiation of
departmental enquiry by Respondent No.3 – Additional
Municipal Corporation is unsustainable.
5. Respondents No. 2 & 3 have justified their action by
contending that there was no evidence against Shri Bahadure
while in departmental enquiry said evidence has come against
the petitioner. It is further stated that the provisions of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, (i.e.
1979 Rules or Discipline & Appeal rules hereinfater), are adopted
vide resolution by Nagpur Municipal Corporation and powers of
disciplinary authorities thereunder are given to various officers of
Nagpur Corporation. Deputy Municipal Commissioner was
competent to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner
in view of delegation in his favour by Municipal Commissioner.
It is, therefore, contended that there is no merit in writ petition
and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
6
invited our attention to relevant provisions of Corporation Act as
also discipline and appeal rules mentioned above to urge that
departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner by
Respondent No.3 and as said respondent could not have imposed
major punishment upon the petitioner, the initiation of enquiry
itself is bad. He points out that even the appellate authority has
found that general body of Nagpur Municipal Corporation is the
appointing authority and, therefore, it alone was competent to
take action against the petitioner. He states that delegation of
powers by the administrator on 28th June 1984 is, therefore, of
no use in present matter. As Municipal Commissioner is not the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner, delegation of his powers
to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is irrelevant. He has
relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Prabhakar vs. K.D. Municipal Corporation, Kalyan,
reported at 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 423. He has also attempted to show
how the petitioner has been victimized though his case and case
of Shri Bahadure is identical and no adverse evidence has come
against the petitioner. He states that the Enquiry Officer had in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
7
fact exonerated the petitioner of charge No.2.
7. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel states that the provisions
of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are adopted by the Municipal
Corporation by passing resolution and those provisions need to
be read subject to express provisions of Nagpur Corporation Act.
He states that Section 53(5) only prohibits imposition of
penalties like discharge, dismissal or removal by any other
authority except appointing authority. He invites attention to
resolution of Corporation dated 28th June 1984 to show how the
powers of Municipal Commissioner to impose minor penalties on
Class II employees and major penalties on class III employees are
delegated to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. He invites
attention to classification of penalties as contained in Section
53(2) read with said resolution dated 28th June 1984 for this
purpose. He further states that the Deputy Municipal
Commissioner is subordinate to the Additional Commissioner.
As the Additional Commissioner is superior authority, it can
institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. He
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
8
places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of S. Sudhakar vs. Postmaster General, reported at
(2006) 4 SCC 348. In this background, he states that the
Division Bench of this Court in its judgment Prabhakar vs. K.D.
Municipal Corporation, Kalyan, (supra) has considered Section 56
of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, where
the scheme is entirely different.
8. Before proceeding further to examine the issue of
perversity of findings or then of victimization of the petitioner,
we find it appropriate to consider legal issue about competency
of authority to initiate departmental enquiry and to punish the
petitioner. The contention of Corporation that it has adopted
Discipline and Appeal Rules of State of Maharashtra by passing
resolution, does not appear to be very correct. Respondent No.1
has on 30th September 1966 published Bye Laws known as
Nagpur Municipal Corporation Services Bye Laws, which came
into force from 1st April 1963. By clause (2) thereof, the Bombay
Civil Services Rules, 1959, with supplementary rules, order and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
9
appendices made thereunder as amended from time to time were
to regulate the conditions of service of Civil Services of Nagpur
Corporation as for as possible. Its clause (5) stipulated that all
references to Government in Bombay Civil Services Rules were to
be construed as references to Nagpur Corporation. All references
to Government servants were to be construed as references to
Nagpur Corporation servants, all references to competent
authorities in Bombay Civil Services Rules were to be construed
as references to competent authorities under City of Nagpur
Corporation Act, 1948, and all references to Head of
Departments were to be construed as References to Municipal
Commissioner. Thus, these bye laws were destined to regulate
departmental enquiry “as far as possible” and all references to
Head of Department therein were to be construed as reference to
Municipal Commissioner.
9. The resolution dated 28th June 1984 needs to be
looked into in this background. The said resolution No. 20 at its
beginning states that as per notification dated 30th September
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
10
1966, Bombay Civil Service Rules were made applicable to
Corporation staff. However, Bombay Civil Service Rules have
now been replaced by Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1979, i.e. 1979 Rules or Discipline & Appeal
Rules, which automatically become applicable to Corporation
employees. However, the resolution observes that by way of
abundant precautions, these 1979 Rules, have been formally
adopted. There is no challenge to this adoption before us.
10. Section 53(2) of Corporation Act prohibits 8 types of
penalties which for good and sufficient reason can be imposed
upon any Municipal employee or servant. Consistent with
classification of penalties into major penalties and minor
penalties in 1979 Rules, those eight penalties have been
classified into major and minor by this resolution. We are
concerned with Section 53(2) (iii) which speaks of penalty of
reduction to a lower post of time scale or to a lower stage in a
time scale. This has been classified as major penalty by this
resolution. The resolution further proceeds to amend Rule 6 of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
11
1979 Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by
stating that the word Governor therein should be read as
Corporation. Then it states that the provision of Rule No. 6 of
Discipline and Appeal Rules would be as mentioned therein and
thus a new proviso has been read/ added into said rule 6 instead
of its existing proviso. As per this new proviso which has been
read into 1979 Rules to make it applicable to services of Nagpur
Corporation as far as possible, the Municipal Commissioner has
been declared to be competent authority for imposing minor
penalties on Class I employee of Corporation. General body of
Corporation is the competent authority for imposing major
penalties on such officers. Municipal Commissioner is declared
competent authority to impose major penalties on all Class II
employees. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner is declared
competent to impose minor penalty on class II employees and
major penalties on class III employees. Then the proviso speaks
of class IV employees. We are not concerned with said proviso.
The holders of the post the minimum of which is Rs.680/- and
above are included in Class – I. It is not in dispute before us that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
12
as per this resolution, the petitioner is in Class – I. In fact, the
appellate authority viz., State Government has in its appellate
order dated 30th May 2007 observed that as per Section 50(1) of
Corporation Act, Corporation “General Body” is appointing
authority and hence penalty imposed upon the petitioner is
maintained by the appellate authority but subject to grant of
approval to that punishment by general body. This position is
not in dispute before us.
11. Section 50(1) (first proviso) confers power of
appointment to the cadre of petitioner only upon a General Body
of Municipal Corporation. Section 53 does not expressly
prescribe any authority as disciplinary authority but then its sub-
section (5) state that Municipal Officer or servant cannot be
discharged, dismissed or removed from service of Corporation by
order of any authority subordinate to that which makes
appointment to his post at the time of order. Thus, these major
penalties can be imposed only by authorities competent to effect
appointment to that cadre on the date of punishment orders.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
13
Section 46 states that the Municipal Commissioner is the
Principal Executive Officer of Corporation and all other officers
and servants of Corporation are subordinate to him. Section 59
speaks of functions of several Municipal authorities and its sub-
section (3) states that subject to express provision to the contrary
in Corporation Act, the entire executive power for the purpose of
carrying out provisions of said Act vest in the Commissioner. He
can perform all duties and exercises all powers specifically
imposed or conferred upon him by Corporation Act. He can also
exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of
all Municipal Officers and servants and deal with all questions
relating to their services. Section 59(5) mentions that any of the
powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested
in the Commissioner by Corporation Act can be exercised,
performed or discharged under the Commissioner’s control and
subject to his superintendence and to such conditions and
limitations as he may think fit to impose, by any Municipal
officer whom the Commissioner may generally or specially
empowered in writing in this behalf.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
14
12. As already stated above, the resolution of
Administrator dated 28th June 1984 authorizes the Municipal
Commissioner to impose minor penalties on Class-I employees of
Nagpur Corporation. The said resolution authorizes the
Municipal Commissioner to impose major penalty on Class – II
employees. As per that resolution, Corporation is the authority
for imposing major penalties on Class – I officers. This resolution
has also classified penalties prescribed in Section 53(2) of
Corporation Act to bring it in conformity with Rule 5 of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The
powers conferred upon him by this resolution are then delegated
by the Municipal Commissioner on 27th February 2002 and that
delegation is to Respondent No.3 – Additional Commissioner.
The Deputy Municipal Commissioner has been authorized by
resolution to impose minor penalties on Class II employees. This
resolution dated 28th June 1984 and 27th February 2002 cannot
be questioned by Nagpur Corporation and has not been
challenged before us by the petitioner. The controversy needs to
be looked into in this background.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
15
13. The effort of Corporation before us is not to show that
the particular requirement of Maharashtra Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is not applicable or relevant here.
On the contrary, their effort is to show its compliances. We,
therefore, proceed to consider the relevant provisions of
Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is already highlighted above that
the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1979, regulate the departmental enquiry of the
petitioner “as far as possible”. Rule 5 thereof classifies
punishment of reduction to a lower time scale of pay as minor
penalty. But then for its service said penalty has been treated as
major penalty by Nagpur Corporation. It is obvious that because
of Rule 6 of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules which prescribes
disciplinary authorities read with above mentioned 1984
resolution, appointing authority can impose any of the penalties
specified in Rule 5 upon members of Class- III and class IV
services. Head of the department has been authorized to impose
minor penalties upon servants in class II. The Governor i.e. in
case of Nagpur Corporation, General Body of Nagpur
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
16
Corporation can impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 5.
It is obvious that, therefore, the appointing authority or General
Body can impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 5 upon
members of class III and IV. In other words, only general body
can impose penalty impugned before us upon the petitioner.
This requirement of Rule 6 of Maharashtra Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, can be read into and used for
inquiries of Corporation employees without any violation of
Nagpur Corporation Act. Rule 7 of Maharashtra Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, states that General Body of
Nagpur Corporation or authority empowered by it may institute
disciplinary proceeding against any Corporation servant or then
it may direct Disciplinary authority to institute such proceedings.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, however, stipulates that a disciplinary
authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in
Rule 5 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any
Corporation servant on whom it is competent to impose any of
the penalties specified therein. Resolution dated 28th June 1984
read with order dated 27th February 2002 shows that Municipal
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
17
Commissioner has been authorized to impose minor penalty
upon the petitioner and that power has been delegated to
Additional Municipal Commissioner i.e. Respondent No.3. In the
scheme of Section 46 read with Section 59 above, it is apparent
that Municipal Commissioner is competent to delegate this
power to Additional Municipal Commissioner. It is to be noted
that this power to impose minor punishment is not delegated to
Municipal Commissioner by General Body and hence contention
that it cannot be sub-delegated further is misconceived. The
departmental enquiry in present matter has been initiated on 4th
December 2002 by Respondent No.3 – Additional Municipal
Commissioner. It expressly refers to Rule 8 of Maharashtra Civil
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, and above
mentioned Resolution dated 28th June 1984. Only requirement
of Rule 7(2) of Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, is the authority must be competent to impose any of the
penalties in Rule 5. Because of delegation in his favour,
Respondent No.3 is competent to impose minor penalties
specified in Rule 5 read with Section 53(2) upon the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
18
Hence, initiation or institution of departmental enquiry by said
officer cannot be said to be unauthorized or illegal.
14. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Prabhakar vs. K.D. Municipal Corporation, (supra), there the
challenge was charge had been framed and proceedings had
been instituted by Municipal Commissioner who had no power to
do so. The delinquent there was Assistant Municipal
Commissioner, whose salary exceeded Rs.1,000/- and hence
power of his appointment was with General Body of Corporation
and not with any other officer. The said delinquent was served
with a final notice for imposing a punishment under Section 56
of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The
said punishment was of dismissal from service. Section 56
permitted a competent authority to impose any of the penalties
specified in sub-section (2) thereof. In this background in para
10 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this Court observed
that Section 56(2) necessarily did not mean that departmental
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
19
proceedings must be initiated only by authority competent to
impose punishment and if notice is issued or charge sheet is
served by a subordinate authority, the same is illegal or contrary
to law or without jurisdiction. However, then the provisions of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 are looked into and thereafter
it is noticed that Rule 8 which prescribe procedure for imposing
major penalties, vide its sub-rule (2) contemplated that
whenever disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are
grounds for enquiring into truth of any imputation of
misconduct, it has itself to enquire into or appoint an Enquiry
Officer to enquire into truth thereof. In para 12, it has been
observed that conjoint reading of Rule 7(2) and 8(2) left no
room for doubt that it was for the disciplinary authority to take
action in accordance with Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules. Either disciplinary authority itself may
enquire into the matter or may authorize other officer to do it.
But in absence of such authorisation, no enquiry can be held by
any officer or authority, if he is not the disciplinary authority. In
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
20
para 13, it is observed that because of Section 56, Corporation
was the competent authority to impose any one of the penalties
specified in Section 56. Since departmental proceedings were
initiated applying Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, the procedure laid down in those rules needed to
be followed. In accordance with those rules, either Corporation
should have initiated or instituted the proceedings or it should
have authorized other officer or authority to enquire into those
allegations. The Division Bench, therefore, concluded that the
Commissioner was not competent to take any action against
delinquent and, therefore, charge sheet itself was quashed and
set aside. The facts show that the Division Bench of this Court
was approached when final show cause notice for punishment
was issued and punishment was still to be imposed. The facts
also show that Municipal Commissioner there was not
disciplinary authority at all. Because of these features, we find
that this ruling is not helpful to present petitioner.
15. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel has relied upon the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
21
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A. Sudhakar
vs. Post Master General, (supra). The ratio of said ruling is
authority higher than appointing authority may also act as
disciplinary authority for the purposes of Article 311 of
Constitution of India, if delinquent officer is not deprived of his
statutory right of appeal. We have already noticed above that
Municipal Commissioner could have imposed minor punishment
upon the petitioner and, therefore, Respondent No.2 – Municipal
Commissioner is disciplinary authority for present petitioner. We
have also held that because of delegation in his favour,
Respondent No.3 has rightly initiated or instituted departmental
proceedings.
16. However, the other relevant provisions of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in the
matter assume importance as major punishment has been
inflicted upon the petitioner. Under Rule 7(2) of Discipline and
Appeal Rules, Respondent No.3 is competent to initiate
departmental enquiry and procedure for imposing minor penalty
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
22
is prescribed in Rule 10 thereof. Rule 10(1)(b) also contemplate
holding of an enquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 8 if
disciplinary authority finds it necessary. In present matter, it is
not in dispute that such an enquiry under Rule 8 has been
conducted against the petitioner. Rule 8(23)(a) stipulates that
where a disciplinary authority, competent to impose any of the
minor penalties, has instituted departmental enquiry and
because of material which has come on record in enquiry, is of
opinion that any of the major penalty should be imposed on
Corporation servant, that authority has to forward records of
enquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose
such major penalty. Thus, though under Rule 7(2), disciplinary
authority competent to impose minor punishment upon the
petitioner has initiated departmental enquiry, that enquiry can
be used for imposing major penalty if such disciplinary authority
is of that opinion. Rules, therefore, take care of situation in
which disciplinary proceedings can be instituted even by a
disciplinary authority of lower grade but then when major
penalty is found necessary, such disciplinary authority of lower
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:34 :::
23
grade has to forward records to superior disciplinary authority
i.e. one which is competent to impose major penalty. This
obviously could not have been done. The procedure prescribed
in Discipline and Appeal Rules is to be followed as far as possible
and hence Respondent No.3 ought to have forwarded the records
along with his opinion to Respondent No.2 – Nagpur Corporation
for further appropriate action. It is to be noted that this course
of action was not required to be considered by Division Bench of
this Court in its judgment Prabhakar vs. K.D. Municipal
Corporation, (supra), as the Municipal Commissioner there was
not shown to be competent disciplinary authority under Rule
7(2). Hence, merely because departmental proceedings are
initiated by authority competent to impose minor penalty,
enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated.
17. Rule 8(23) (b) states that after the records are
received by superior disciplinary authority like Corporation
(General Body) here, it can take further evidence if it finds it
necessary and may impose on Corporation servant such penalty
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:35 :::
24
as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules. It is, therefore,
obvious that the application of mind to the report of Enquiry
Officer and further action upon it in the manner stipulated in
Rule 9 is to be undertaken by Corporation in present matter and
not by Respondent No.3. The disciplinary authority i.e.
Respondent No.3 has not conducted departmental enquiry and
after receipt of enquiry report, it issued a final notice to the
petitioner on 26th March 2005. In this final notice, Respondent
No.3 has stated that he is not agreeing with findings of Enquiry
Officer on Charge No.2. He has given his reasons therefor. In
view of the scheme of Rule 8(23)(a) and (b), it is clear that
when major penalty is found just in the matter of the petitioner,
such course of action could not have been followed by
Respondent No.3. He should have taken recourse to Rule 8(23)
(a) and forwarded the records of departmental enquiry to
competent disciplinary authority i.e. Corporation. The
Corporation thereafter could have proceeded further under Rule
8(23)(b) or in such other way as it found just in terms of Rule 8
and Rule 9. When enquiry is not conducted by disciplinary
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:35 :::
25
authority and report of enquiry officer is to be used by such
disciplinary authority, giving of an opportunity of hearing to the
delinquent employee about the correctness or otherwise of
findings recorded by Enquiry Officer is held to be essential
ingredient of principles of natural justice by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,
reported at AIR 1991 SC 471. It is, therefore, obvious that in the
face of this law of land and express provision in Rule 8(23)(a)
and (b) of Discipline & Appeal Rules, Respondent No.3 ought to
have forwarded the entire records to Corporation for
consideration of enquiry report and also for finding out further
steps required to be taken in accordance with law in the matter.
Once Respondent No.3 found that a major penalty needed to be
inflicted upon the petitioner, he ceased to have any jurisdiction
in the matter and he could not have proceeded to impose any
punishment upon the petitioner. Respondent No.1 – State
Government has noticed that Corporation is the competent
authority in the matter but has only made the punishment
imposed by Respondent No.3, subject to approval of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:35 :::
26
Nagpur Corporation.
18. In view of these findings, it is apparent that the order
of punishment dated 28th October 2005 passed by Respondent
No.3 and order dated 30th May 2007 passed by Respondent No.1
in appeal are unsustainable. The same are accordingly quashed
and set aside. However, the proceedings need to be restored at
the stage of issuance of final show cause notice dated 23rd June
2005 by Respondent No.3. The said notice dated 23rd June 2005
is also quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to
forward the records of departmental enquiry as per rule 8(23)(a)
to the competent disciplinary authority i.e. Corporation for
further action in accordance with Rule 8(23)(b). In view of
these conclusion, it is apparent that correctness or otherwise of
findings reached by the Enquiry Officer can be agitated before
Corporation by present petitioner. Similarly, the question of
victimization can also be raised by him before that authority. It
is, therefore, not necessary for us to record any finding in that
respect in present matter at this stage.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:35 :::
27
19. With the result, the final Show cause notice dated 23rd
Jun 2005, the order of punishment dated 28th October 2005 and
appellate order dated 30th May 2007 impugned in this writ
petition are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is partly
allowed and departmental proceedings against the petitioner are
restored to the file of Respondent No.3 for further action in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8(23)(a) and (b) of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.
Considering the nature of controversy, said inquiry be completed
as early as possible and in any case by 31st May 2010. Rule
accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*******
*GS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:16:35 :::