Dismissed

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. v. Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2014WP/8440/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) Constitution read with Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Court held they were not holding civil posts under State and could not claim Article 311 protection. Double quashing not feasible as alternative remedy lies with Standing Committee.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. Vs Mr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp8440.14.sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8440 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Yesehavant Manohar Dhaygode & others V/s.	...	Petitioners
Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar & ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. C.G.Gavnekar i/b. Mr. M.R. Deshpande for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Godbole i/b. Mr. R.S. Alange for respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ . 22nd September, 2014.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

The 44 petitioners challenged order of dismissal of service passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solapur in exercise of powers under Article 311 sub-section 2(b) of Constitution of India with reference to Section 56(3)(b) and 56(2) (h) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners had put in service of more than 25 years. They addressed a representation to the Commissioner on 28^th August, 2014 (Exhibit-I). Without holding enquiry and without providing appropriate opportunity of hearing, they were dismissed from service which is a harsh and unreasonable order.

¶11

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has referred to the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that considering the fact that due to absence of petitioners essential services to be

¶12

2/2

¶13

wp8440.14.sxw

¶14

provided to the residents of Solapur city got affected and due to which the Commissioner took a decision to dismiss their services. The learned Counsel submitted that there is an effective alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Corporation.

¶15

We have perused the record. Considered the provisions of law. Primafacie we find that the powers exercised by the Commissioner under Constitution Article 311, sub-section 2(b) are not amenable as petitioners are not holding civil posts under the State. Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, it was submitted that appeal would lie to the Standing Committee of the Corporation. Questions of facts would be looked into by an Appellate Authority.

¶16

The petitioners are entitled to resort to alternate remedy as may be permissible in law. In case petitioners approach the Standing Committee within a week's time, we direct the Standing Committee to decide the appeal/interim applications, if any, expeditiously and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. The posts lying vacant due to dismissal of petitioners shall not be filled in on regular basis till the decision of the Standing Committee.

¶17

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits. With these directions writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶19

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. v. Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. v. Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Liquidator, Shriram Sahakari Bank Ltd, Nashik Vs Smt. Dayagauri Kalyanji Badiani and Ors.

The Liquidator, Shriram Sahakari Bank Ltd, Nashik Vs Shabbir Ahmed Khatib Ands Ors.

Dr. Anand Baburao Malvi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Koustubh Kamlakar Mench Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through Secretary and Ors.

Union of India, through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kumar Mahato and Ors.

Union of India, through Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Cbec and Ors. Vs Manoj Jain