Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation VS Sanjay Gajanan Gharat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Gajanan Gharat and Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6885 of 2021] With Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6968 of 2021]
Decided On : 31-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv Mr. P.S.Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Ms. Harshika Verma,Adv. Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishanu Barua, Adv. Ms. Ruchita Kunal Cheema, Adv. Mr. Sabir Kachhi, Adv.

Headnote:
Suspension - Competent Authority - MMC Act, 1949 - Section 39A, Section 56 - The court held that the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. However, in case of suspension of such an officer, the only requirement would be to report to the Corporation, with reasons thereof, and if such a suspension is not confirmed by the Corporation within a period of six months from the date of such suspension, the same shall come to an end. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity and anomaly, and therefore will have to be avoided.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent No.1, an AMC of the KDM Corporation, was suspended and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, setting aside the suspension and directing reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court's decision was not sustainable in law. The court held that the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. The departmental proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 are directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. The respondent No.1 would continue to be under suspension till the conclusion of the said departmental proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation had the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. The departmental proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 are directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. The respondent No.1 would continue to be under suspension till the conclusion of the said departmental proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 is dismissed, and the departmental proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 are directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. The respondent No.1 would continue to be under suspension till the conclusion of the said departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

2. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “KDM Corporation”) and the State of Maharashtra, by way of the present appeals, challenge the correctness of the judgment dated 6th April 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (ST.) No. 3599 of 2020, thereby holding that the KDM Corporation was not the competent authority to suspend respondent No.1-Sanjay Gajanan Gharat. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had also quashed the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent No.1 and directed the KDM Corporation to reinstate him forthwith to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “AMC”) of the KDM Corporation.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent No.1 was initially appointed as an Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the KDM Corporation in the year 1995. The said appointment was approved by the State Government on 1st February 1997 under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the MMC Act”). The KDM Corporation thereafter recommended the respondent No.1 to be promoted as Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the KDM Corporation on 9th May 2003. This was done after the Departmental Promotion Committee of the KDM Corporation found respondent No.1 suitable for such promotion. The General Body of the KDM Corporation also approved the said recommendation in its meeting held on 18th July 2003. The State Government, vide notification dated 23rd July 2005, granted approval to the promotion of respondent No.1 as Deputy Municipal Commissioner with effect from 9th May 2003.

4. Vide Maharashtra Act No.32 of 2011, which came into effect from 25th September 2011, various amendments were effected into the MMC Act. Vide the said amendment, Section 39A was brought in the statute, which provided for creation of one or more posts of AMCs and appointment of suitable persons on such posts.

5. In pursuance of the amendment effected in the year 2011, the State Government issued a Government Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “G.R.”) on 11th November 2011. Vide the said G.R., one post of AMC was created for the KDM Corporation. Consequent to the upgradation of the KDM Corporation from Class ‘D’ to Class ‘C’, one additional post of AMC came to be created vide G.R. dated 6th January 2015. The said G.R. also laid down the procedure for carrying out the selection process for the post of AMCs. Undisputedly, the Selection Committee, which considered the proposal of the Commissioner of the KDM Corporation, for a suitable person to be appointed as AMC, in its meeting held on 5th May 2015, found respondent No.1 most suitable for the same and accordingly, his name came to be recommended by the Selection Committee to the State of Maharashtra for appointment to the post of AMC of the KDM Corporation. The respondent No.1 came to be appointed as AMC of the KDM Corporation by the State of Maharashtra on 2nd June 2015. Pursuant to his appointment, the respondent No.1 joined his service as AMC of the KDM Corporation in the same month.

6. On 14th June 2018, an FIR No.34 of 2018 came to be registered against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) along with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent No.1 was arrested on the same date and continued to be in custody till 17th June 2018, on which date, he was released on bail.

7. The Commissioner of the KDM Corporation purportedly, in exercise of the powers under Section 56(1)(b) of the MMC Act and Rule 4(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “MCS Rules”), on 18th June 2018, issued an order suspending respondent No.1 from service. The General Body of the KDM Corporation, in its meeting held on 7th July 2018, ratified the suspension of respon