http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: J.N. GANATRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MORVI MUNICIPALITY, MORVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/07/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   661        1996 SCALE  (5)375

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Kuldip Singh, J.      The appellant  was employed  as an  Overseer with Morvi Municipality in  Rajkot District,  State of  Gujarat. He was dismissed from  service by  a resolution  dated December  1, 1970 passed  by the  Municipality. The  appellant challenged the order  of dismissal  by way  of a  civil suit. The trial court dismissed  the suit.  The  appellate  court,  however, reversed the  findings of  the trial  court and  decreed the suit. The  second  appeal  filed  by  the  Municipality  was allowed by the High Court and the judgment and decree passed by the  first appellate  court was set aside and the suit of the appellant  was dismissed  on the  short ground  that the same was  barred by  limitation under  Section 253(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities  Act, 1963  (the Act). This appeal by way of  special leave  is against  the judgment  of the High Court.      It is  not disputed  that before  passing the order. of dismissal it  was mandatory  for the  Municipality  to  have followed the  procedure  laid  down  under  the  Morvi  City Municipal  Officers   and  Servants,   Conduct,  Discipline, Dismissal, Penalty  and Appeal etc., Rules 1960 (the Rules). Rule 35 of the Rules, which is relevant is as under:      "Before imposing  the penalty under      sub-sections 3,6,7  & 8  of Section      21 upon  the officer  or  employee,      the investigating  general Board or      Committee shall  have to follow the      following methods/procedure.      1.   To take  dscision  for  action      asainst the  responsible officer or      employee.      2.   Written Charge-sheet should be      given to him.      3.   To make  investigation/enquiry      and to  take evidence in respect of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    his misbehaviour, fault of offence.      4.   To  take  written  explanation      from him.      5.   After the aforesaid proceeding      the opinion  should  be  given  and      decision of order should be made."      The High  Court on  merits came  to the conclusion that the  order  dismissing  the  appellant  was  passed  without complying with  the provisions  of rule 35 of the Rules. The High Court,  therefore, held that the order of dismissal was illegal. The  relevant part  of the  High Court  judgment in this respect is as under:      "Rule  35   of   the   Morvi   City      Municipal  Officers  and  Servants,      Conduct,   Disciplines   Dismissal,      Punishment and  Appeal Rules framed      by the  said Municipality  in  1960      lays down  that before  imposing  a      punishment  upon   an  officer   or      servant of  the  Municipality,  the      General Board  or the Committee has      to: (1)  take a  decision  to  take      action  against   the  officer   or      servant, (2)  give  him  a  charge-      sheet in writing, (33 take evidence      about   the   misconduct   of   the      servant, (4)  call for  his written      explanation, (5) reach a conclusion      and give  a decision  and  pass  an      appropriate order.      In  the  present  case,  it  is  an      admitted position  that no decision      was taken  either  by  the  General      Board   or   by   the   Controlling      Committee of  the  Municipality  to      take any  such action  against  the      plaintiff. It  is also  an admitted      position that  no charge-sheet  has      been given  by the General Board or      by the Committee acting through the      Chief Officer or any other officer.      It is  clear on the face of it that      the charge-sheet,  Ex.41, is issued      by the  president in  his own  name      and is signed by him. There is also      nothing on  record to show that any      evidence was  taken in  the present      case  to   consider   whether   the      charges   levelled    against   the      plaintiff  were   established.   It      appears  that   the  plaintiff  was      called upon to give his explanation      and he  did give  some  explanation      There is  nothing on record to show      that any  notice was  given to  the      plaintiff informing  him  that  the      charges against him were proved and      calling upon  him to show cause why      he should  not  be  dismissed  from      service. But  it appears  that  the      Chief Officer  of the  Municipality      gave a  notice, Ex.55,  dated 7-10-      1969 to the plaintiff informing him      that  the  General  Board  will  be      taking  up  for  consideration  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    resolution    passed     by     the      Controlling Committee  on 17-4 1969      with regard  to his  dismissal from      service and he may produce whatever      evidence he  wants  to  in  defence      before the  General Board.  In view      of this,  we may  say that  he  was      given  an  opportunity  to  give  a      written explanation  as required by      sub-rule (4)  of the  Rule 35.  The      provision of  sub-rule (5)  of Rule      35 lays down that the General Board      or the  Committee, as  the case may      be, has  to reach  a conclusion and      pass a  judgment and  also  pass  a      consequential  order.   This  shows      that  the   General  Board  or  the      Committee, as  the case may be, has      to record  a finding  with  reasons      for reaching  the conclusion  about      the guilt  of the  delinquent.  The      resolution   of   the   Controlling      Committee is  at Ex.38. It is dated      17-4-1969. It  only  mentions  that      the charge  against the  delinquent      plaintiff was  established and  the      Committee was  of the  opinion that      the  plaintiff  should  be  removed      from service  and the matter may be      placedbefore the  General Board. No      reasons  are   disclosed  in   this      resolution as  to why the Committee      had reached  such a  conclusion The      resolution also does not show as to      what  inquiry,  if  any,  was  held      against the plaintiff before taking      this decision.  The  resolution  of      the General  Board is at Ex.85. The      resolution is dated 1-12-1970. This      resolution also  does not  disclose      any reasons  as to  why the General      Board had reached the conclusion to      dismiss the  plaintiff except  that      it had taken into consideration the      resolution   of   the   Controlling      Committee and  the submissions made      by  the   advocate  on   behalf  of      theplaintiff.   This   shows   that      neitherEx.38  nor  Ex.85  disclosed      any reasons whatsoever."      The High Court finally concluded as      under:      "It will  appear from what has been      discussed    above    no    inquiry      ,4<he     plaintiff-      respondent as required by the rules      framed  by  the  Municipality.  The      order passed  by the  General Board      of the  Municipality dismissing the      plaintiff-respondent from  service,      therefore, is  on the  face of  it,      illegal and inoperative. On merits,      therefore,      the      defendant-      Municipality has no case."      Having held  that the order passed by the General Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of the  Municipality dismissing  the appellant  from service was on  the face  of it  illegal and  inoperative, the  High Court non-suited  the appellant on the short ground that the suit was  barred by limitation in terms of Section 253(1)(a) of the Act. The said section reads as follows:      "253(1) - No suit shall lie against      a muticipality  in respect  of  any      act done  in pursuance or execution      or intended  execution of  this Act      or  in   respect  of   any  alleged      neglect or default in the execution      of this Act,-      (a)  Unless  it  instituted  within      six months  next after  the accrual      of the cause of action; and..."      On the  interpretation of  Section 253(1)(a),  the High Court posed the following question :      "On  facts,   I  have   found,   as      discussed earlier,  that the action      of the  Municipality  was  bad,  in      that the procedure laid down by the      rules has  not  been  followed  and      further  because  no  reasons  have      been   given    either    by    the      Controlling  Committee  or  by  the      General  Board   for  reaching  the      conclusion to dismiss the plaintiff      from  service   The   question   is      whether in  view  of  this  factual      position, can  it be said  that the      act  of  the  Municipality  was  in      pursuance   or,    at   any   rate,      execution or  intended execution of      the Act?"      The High  Court finally came to the conclusion that the suit filed  by the  appellant was barred by limitation as it was not  filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 253(1)(a)  of the  Act The  High Court  reached  the finding on the following reasoning:      "The discussion  made above clearly      shows that  even though  the action      of the  Municipality in  dismissing      the plaintiff was null and void for      the reasons  which have been stated      in the  beginning none-the-less the      Municipality can  be said  to  have      acted in  intended execution of the      Act and  hence  the  provisions  of      Section 253(1)(a) will be attracted      in the present case."      We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties. We are of the  view that  the High  Court fell into patent error in reaching the  conclusion that the dismissal of the appellant from service,  in utter  violation of  rule 35 of the Rules, was an  "act done  in pursuance  or  execution  or  intended execution of  this Act....." It is no doubt correct that the General Board  of the  Municipality had  the power under the Act to  dismiss the  appellant but the said power could only be exercised  in the  manner indicated  by rule  35  of  the Rules. Admittedly  the  power  of  dismissal  has  not  been exercised the  way it was required to be done under the Act. It is  settled proposition  of law  that  a  power  under  a statute  has   to  be   exercised  in  accordance  with  the provisions of the statute and in no other manner. In view of the categoric  finding given by the High Court to the effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

that the  order of  dismissal was  on the face of it illegal and  void,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  holding  that  the dismissal of  the appellant was not an act done in pursuance or execution  or intended execution of the Act. The order of dismissal being  patently and  grossly in  violation of  the plain provisions  of the  Rules it cannot be treated to have been passed under the Act.      This Court  in Poona  City  Municipal  Corporation  vs. Dattatraya Nagesh  Dattatraya Nagesh  Deodher 1964 8 SCR 178 while interpreting  a similar  provision  under  the  Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1949  observed  as under:      "The benefit  of this section would      be  available  to  the  Corporation      only  if  it  was  held  that  this      deduction of  ten per  cent was "an      act done or purported to be done in      pursuance or  execution or intended      execution of  this  Act."  We  have      already held that this levy was not      in pursuance  or execution  of  the      Act. It  is equally  clear that  in      view of  the provisions of s.l27(4)      (to which we have already referred)      the levy   could  not be said to be      "purported to  be done in pursuance      or execution  or intended execution      of the  Act." For,  what is plainly      prohibited by  the  Act  cannot  be      claimed to  be purported to be done      in pursuance  or intended execution      of the Act".      This   Court   in   Municipal   Corporation   vs.   Sri Niyamatullah S/o Masitulla 1970 2 SCR 47 interpreted Section 135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909 which is similar to Section 253(a) of the Act in the following term:      "The   provisions    contained   in      section 135 of the Indore Municipal      Act will  be applicable  to  things      done under  the Act. It is manifest      that in  the present case the order      of   dismissal   passed   by   Shri      Ghatpande    was     beyond     his      jurisdiction and  is therefore  not      an act done under the Act."      The dismissal  order in  the present case could only be passed by following the procedure laid down under rule 35 of the Rules.  The  Municipal  Board  had  no  jurisdiction  or authority to  dismiss the  appellant without  following  the mandatory procedure. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in reaching the conclusion that the order dismissing the appellant was within the provisions of the  Act. We  allow the  appeal, set  aside the  impugned judgment of  the High  Court and  decreed the  suit  of  the appellant with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs.20,000/-.