Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No 726 of 2006 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant – Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and has confirmed the judgment and order 1 12 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No 10682 of 1998 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said application preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the dismissal order passed by the Commissioner, the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has preferred the present appeal.
The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, thereafter, passed a dismissal order dated 07.12.1998 by which the respondent was ordered to be dismissed from service. 4 It was the case on behalf of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that the Resolution No 51 dated 20.11.1998 passed by the General Board of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation did not empower the Municipal Corporation to initiate and/or conclude the disciplinary proceedings for the alleged irregularities or negligence in the present case.
The learned Single Judge also held that the 4 12 subsequent ratification by the General Board would not confer any authority upon the Commissioner and the subsequent ratification of the action of the Commissioner would not save the action. 7
The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal No 726 of 2006 by which the learned Single Judge upheld the inquiry and the inquiry report. However, thereafter vide order dated 24.08.2012, while granting leave, this Court has directed that the appellants shall continue to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-bail-granting-criteria-in-criminal-cases/
It is submitted that even if the order passed by the Commissioner can be said to be invalid, the same came to be ratified subsequently, the said defect, in any case, can be said to have been cured.
It is submitted that, therefore, the decision of the Commissioner to dismiss the respondent from service was void ab initio and therefore, the subsequent ratification by the General Board cannot save the order of dismissal.
51, it appears that though the issue raised was with regard to the lapses and negligence on the part of the officers in various works and purchases and was discussed, however, ultimately, what was resolved was to empower the Commissioner to take proper and necessary action against those erring officers, who committed lapses and carelessness in various works in purchases and take action as per the rules and regulations, wherever, necessary. Therefore, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division bench of the High Court have rightly observed and held that the Resolution No 51 did 9 12 not authorize and/or confer any power upon the Commissioner to take action with respect to any other lapses other than the purchases.
Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16-8-1996 was passed by the Principal and Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor was there any authorisation given by the BoG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BoG in their meeting held on 22-8- 1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal and Secretary in passing the respondent’s dismissal order dated 16-8- 1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal and Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the competent authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16- 8-1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the Rules.” 04.2012
pursuant to the order passed by this Court be not recovered from the respondent despite allowing the present appeal and restoring the order of dismissal. No costs.
Case Title: MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. R.M. DOSHI (2023 INSC 474)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006069-006069 / 2012
