2026 Supreme(SC) 710

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Rajesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation And Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8640 of 2026 (SLP (C) No. 28644 of 2019)
Decided On : 17-06-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dismissal from service – Commissioner of Delhi Municipal Corporation is competent to take disciplinary action against an Executive Engineer of Delhi Municipal Corporation.
(2) Interpretation of Statute – While construing a statute, it must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of whole statute.
(3) Subordinate Legislation – Regulations are piece of subordinate legislation – What can be achieved by a subordinate legislation under the Act can always be achieved by an amendment of the Act by competent legislature.

Headnote:

(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 – Regulations 6 and 7 – Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Section 59 – Dismissal from service – Consequent to substitution of clause (d) of Section 59 by Act 67 of 1993, with effect from 01.10.1993, notwithstanding existing 1959 Regulations, it is Commissioner who is disciplinary authority of appellant and as such competent to impose punishment of dismissal from service – Impugned judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 77, 82, 83 and 84)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Principles of Construction – Use of word ‘substitute’ or ‘substitution’ in amending Act is not necessarily reflection of two severable steps, one of repeal and other of insertion – It may be a single indivisible step of making existing provision inoperative by replacing it with new provision – Court must look at legislative intent -whether it is to repeal existing provision independent to insertion of new one – If legislative intent is composite and indivisible, to remove and insert simultaneously, judicial approach of segregating these two steps and treating them differently would amount to re-writing law contrary to legislative intent – Mere use of word ‘substitute’ or ‘substitution’ in amending Act does not make substituted provision relate back to date of enforcement of provision which it seeks to substitute – Unless legislative intent is to the contrary, inserted provision brought by way of substitution is to operate from date it is placed in the statute – Construction of amended provision is governed by legislative intent and not nomenclature put to amendment – While construing amended provision, if words employed so permit, an interpretation which serves purpose of amendment must be preferred – Task of interpretation of a statutory provision is an attempt to discover intention of Legislature from language used. (Paras 44 and 65)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Prospectivity – Every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation – Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, it is open for Legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation – This can be achieved by express enactment or by necessary implication from language employed – If it is a necessary implication from language employed that legislature intended a particular section to have a retrospective operation, courts will give it such an operation – When retrospective operation is not expressly given, courts may be called upon to construe provisions and answer question whether legislature had sufficiently expressed that intention to give retrospectivity to statute or its provision. (Para 46)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Harmonious Construction – When there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both – Construction that reduces one of provisions to a ‘useless lumber’ or ‘dead letter’ is not harmonious construction – To harmonize is not to destroy – If a special provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from general provision [Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, and Generalibus Specialia Derogant] – If two sections of an Act cannot be reconciled, as they may be absolute contradictions, last must prevail – But this should be accepted only in last resort. (Para 79)

(E) Statute Law – Subordinate Legislation – Regulations are piece of subordinate legislation – What can be achieved by a subordinate legislation under the Act can always be achieved by an amendment of the Act by competent legislature – Existence of a Regulation framed under the Act cannot fetter legislative power to amend the Act in a way that it overrides the Regulation. (Para 80)

Facts of the case:

The short question that arises for consideration is whether Commissioner was competent to inflict punishment of dismissal from service upon the appellant.

Findings of Court:

Parliament by substituting clause (d) of Section 59 has specified Disciplinary Authority subject to any regulation that may be made thereafter. Therefore, Section 59(d), as substituted, and Section 95(1) have been crafted to operate in different fields. Section 59(d) provides as to who would be disciplinary authority subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf whereas Section 95 (1) specifies punishments that can be imposed on a Municipal Officer or other Municipal Employees by such authority as may be prescribed by Regulations.

Result : Appeal dismissed.