Ratification can validate an otherwise irregular act if approved by competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. 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 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 Corporat ion has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That the respondent herein, at the relevant time, was discharging his duty as City Engineer of the appellant – Municipal Corporation. That for certain execution of work and construction of roads within the Municipal Corporation area, it was found that the respondent had committed certain irregularities. A chargesheet came to be issued against him on 15.01.1993. The respondent did not agree to the charges levelled against him. Therefore, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 06.10.1995.

2.2 The Inquiry Report was made available to him calling for his representation. Report of the Inquiry Officer was supplied alongwith notice dated 02.09.1998. He was called upon to show cause as to why major penalty as provided under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971, should not be imposed upon him. The respondent replied to the said show cause notice. 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.

2.3 The order of dismissal passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation was challenged by the respondent before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondent challenged the inquiry report as well as the dismissal order on merits and also on the ground that the Commissioner, who passed the order of dismissal was not having any jurisdiction and/or authority to pass a dismissal order and impose the major penalty.

2.4 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 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings for the alleged irregularities or negligence in the present case.

2.5 The petition was opposed by the Corporation on merits as well as on the authority of the Commissioner. It was submitted that under Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998, the Commissioner had passed the final order of penalty. It was contended that the delegation covers all kinds of works including purchases and other execution of work in which it is found that the officer has committed irregularity or had acted in a negligent manner. It was further submitted that eventually, the General Body of the Corporation vide its Resolution No. 56 dated 15.12.1998 as amended by subsequent Resolution dated 30.12.1998, had ratified the action taken by the Commissioner.

2.6 The learned Single Judge though held on merits against the respondent but, however, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Commissioner solely on the ground that the Commissioner had no authority and/or power to impose any major penalty upon the respondent for the misconduct proved. The learned Single Judge observed that the Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 conferred power upon the Commissioner for initiating action for irregularities with respect to the purchases only and not with respect to any other misconduct and/or irregularity. The learned Single Judge