Partly allowed

Milind Bhaginath Kapile v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Bombay HC29 Sept 2014WP/2385/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the validity of a suspension order lacking ratification by the General Body within six months under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. The High Court held that non-ratification automatically revokes the suspension and quashed the order, expediting the pending inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The order of suspension dated 10th February 2014 was quashed; inquiry expedited.

Milind Bhaginath Kapile Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

4.wp.2385.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2385 OF 2014

¶5

Milind B. Kapile ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. P. S. Dani i/b Mr. N. P. Shimpi,for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP, for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Counsel i/b G. H. Keluskar,for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 29, 2014.

¶11

P. C.:

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶13

2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the suspension order passed against him was not ratified by the General Body within the stipulated time frame as prescribed under proviso (b) to Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949

¶14

Aswale 1/5

¶15

4.wp.2385.14

¶16

(for short “the Act”).

¶17

3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of non compliance of proviso (b) to Section 56(1) of the Act, as the Corporation failed to ratify the order of suspension within a period of six months from the date of suspension, the order of suspension would get automatically revoked. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere and Ors v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in 2012 (2) Bom. C. R. page 505.

¶18

4 On merits of the charges levelled against the Petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that false allegations are made against the Petitioner in respect of the grant of tender. The Petitioner was not involved in the process of issuance of tender. The tender was offered to the successful bidder. There is no foundation for levelling allegations against the Petitioner.

¶19

5 It is further submitted that the charge-sheet itself deserves to be quashed and set aside for want of any adverse material against the Petitioner.

¶20

Aswale 2/5

¶21

6 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation submitted that the issue concerning the ratification of the suspension order was placed before the General Body of the Corporation. The General Body has taken a decision in respect of the resolution subject no.12 relating to the ratification. The decision is “ to file the matter”, meaning thereby that the decision of ratification could not be taken.

¶22

7 The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that serious allegations are made against the Petitioner which require holding of enquiry against him. It is submitted that in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, the Court may not look into the acceptability or otherwise of the allegations/charges levelled against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been suspended. It does not invite any stigma against him. It is submitted that the enquiry is already initiated against the Petitioner. The next date in the enquiry is posted to 31st October, 2014.

¶23

8 We have perused the record placed before us and gone through the show cause notice, reply filed, the resolution passed by the Corporation.

¶24

Aswale 3/5

¶25

9 We have perused the provisions of Section 56 of the Act concerning ratification of suspension order. This issue is no more res integra . The learned counsel for the Petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment(supra) and Division Bench Judgment passed by us in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2014 dated 28^th August 2014 wherein, we have taken a view that in absence of ratification of suspension order within six month by the General Body of the Corporation, the suspension order gets automatically revoked.

¶26

10 In respect of the allegations made against the Petitioner, we find that the charge-sheet is already served on the Petitioner, enquiry has already been initiated and the next date in the enquiry is 31^st October 2014. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage to examine questions of fact, examination of documents without there being any evidence led by the parties. In the facts of the case, we do not find that initiation of enquiry against the Petitioner is stigmatic in nature. The Petitioner may lead appropriate evidence in support of his defence. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the Petitioner.

¶27

Aswale 4/5

¶28

4.wp.2385.14

¶29

11 The Petition succeeds on the first ground in respect of the

¶30

suspension order passed against the Petitioner.

¶31

ORDER

¶32