Bombay High Court Orders BMC to Mention Appeal Remedy in Disciplinary Orders

In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for municipal employees, the Bombay High Court has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to mandatorily mention the remedy of appeal in every disciplinary order it issues. The decision came in a writ petition filed by a former Deputy Chief Fire Officer of the Mumbai Fire Brigade, Shashikant Anant Kale, who was terminated in 2021 and denied any internal appellate recourse.

A Fire Officer's Fight for Justice

Shashikant Kale, a veteran of the Mumbai Fire Brigade who served from 1989 and even held the acting charge of Chief Fire Officer, faced a departmental enquiry in December 2020 . On July 16, 2021 , the Municipal Commissioner terminated his services. When Kale attempted to appeal the termination before the Municipal Commissioner, his appeal was not entertained. The BMC instead directed him to approach the State Government under Sections 520B and 520C of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 . After being told in November 2025 that "there is no provision for appeal with the Municipal Corporation," Kale was left with no option but to approach the High Court.

The Core Dispute: A Right Without a Remedy?

The central legal question before the Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti A. Sathe was whether an employee terminated by the Municipal Commissioner has a right to a departmental appeal under the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2015 (the "2015 Rules").

Kale, through his counsel Mr. Prashant Kulkarni, contended that the 2015 Rules clearly provide for an appeal against penalties, including dismissal. He argued that the Municipal Commissioner's order refusing to entertain the appeal was illegal and that the referral to the State Government was a misdirection.

The BMC, represented by Ms. Pushpa Yadav, maintained that there was no provision for an appeal within the corporation and that Kale's remedy lay before the State Government.

High Court Puts Its Foot Down: The 2015 Rules Hold the Answer

The Court minutely examined the 2015 Rules, focusing on Rule 5 (Penalties), Rule 16 (Orders against which no appeal lies), Rule 17 (Orders against which appeal lies), and Rule 18 (Appellate Authorities). It noted that Rule 5(B) lists "Dismissal from service" as a major penalty. Rule 17(ii) categorically states that an appeal lies against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 5, and Rule 18(4) prescribes that when the order is made by the Municipal Commissioner, the appeal shall be heard by an appellate committee formed by the Commissioner.

"It is clear from a conjoint reading of Rule 5 (A) and 5(B) read with Rule 17 (ii) and Rule 18 (4) , that certainly a remedy of an appeal is available to a delinquent employee who has been imposed a penalty of termination / removal from service, as in the case of the petitioner," the Court observed.

The Bench decisively rejected the BMC's reliance on Section 520B of the MMC Act. The Court held that Section 520B, which grants the State Government overarching power to suspend or rescind resolutions or orders of the corporation, cannot be read as providing a specific appellate remedy against a disciplinary order. The State Government thereunder is not an appellate authority for termination orders.

"We would not agree with the Municipal Corporation's contention that, under the aforesaid provision, the State Government would act as the Appellate Authority ," the Court stated.

Mandatory Mention of Appeal Rights in All Disciplinary Orders

The Court did not stop at merely correcting the error in Kale's case. It expressed strong dissatisfaction with the BMC's approach that forced a long-serving employee to "run from pillar to post."

"we record our dissatisfaction with the approach of the authorities, which in fact has resulted to defeat the provisions of the appellate remedy , which was available to the petitioner," the Bench remarked.

Drawing from the House of Lords decision in London & Clydeside Estates Ltd. v. Aberdeen District Council , the Court noted that informing a person of his right of appeal is a mandatory requirement. Failure to do so is not a mere technicality but a fatal omission that can invalidate the proceeding. The Court directed that in all disciplinary orders, the disciplinary authority must specifically refer to the remedy of appeal and the relevant rule under the 2015 Rules.

"henceforth, as a requirement of law , in all matters where the disciplinary authority has passed an order, specific reference to the remedy of an appeal referring to the relevant provision under the Rules shall be incorporated by the disciplinary authority of the Municipal Corporation, so that the situation as in the present case does not occur," the Court ordered.

The Immediate Relief and Its Implications

For Kale, the Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to form an Appellate Committee under Rule 18(4) within two weeks, providing him with a proper hearing on his appeal against termination. All contentions of the parties were kept open for the appellate authority to decide.

This ruling is a landmark for thousands of municipal employees across Mumbai. It establishes that the 2015 Rules are the governing framework for disciplinary appeals, not vague executive referrals to the State Government. It also imposes a positive obligation on the BMC to explicitly inform employees of their appellate rights in every disciplinary order, bringing much-needed transparency to departmental proceedings and ensuring that employees are not left to navigate a labyrinth of non-existent remedies.

(Before the Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti A. Sathe in Writ Petition No. 1939 of 2026)