The Court held that an inquiry report conducted under Section 311 of the Act, 1965, can form the basis for a disqualification order under Sections 55B and 42 of the Act, 1965, provided that the inquiry is conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the authority issuing the disqualification order applies its mind to the facts of the case and gives sufficient reasons for its decision.

S.B. Shukre, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister, thereby disqualifying the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965).

2. The petitioners, when the impugned order was passed, were or had been the part of the Municipal Council, Katol, in such capacities as petitioner no. 1 being the President; petitioner no. 2 being the Ex President and the Councillor and petitioner nos. 3 to 10 being the councillors and petitioner no. 10 being a co-opted councillor. They were disqualified by respondent no. 2 for the reason that they were found to have indulged in misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The alleged controversial conduct of the petitioners related to the allotment of some minor works to one contractor, Shri Bambal.

3. Some councillors belonging to the opposition parties filed a complaint before the respondent no. 2 alleging that the petitioners committed illegality in allotting the work to said Shri Bambal in the meeting held on 7.5.2013. The respondent no. 2 took its cognizance and directed respondent no. 3 to make an inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint under the provisions of Section 311 of the Act, 1965. The respondent no. 3, on his part, directed the Sub Divisional Officer to make an enquiry and submit his report, which he did on 31.12.2013. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in the inquiry that was conducted, statements of petitioners were not recorded and the relevant documents were not properly considered. This report was forwarded by respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 2.

4. On receipt of the report, respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice on 02.8.2014 to the petitioners framing therein charges of misconduct. The first charge was about dividing the work relating to carrying out repairs to the existing works, roads etc. in violation of clause 18 of the Standing Order No. 36 and the provision of Section 72 of the Act, 1965. It is the submission of the petitioners that in fact provisions of Section 72 of the Act 1965 were not applicable to the present case and the Standing Order No. 36 having been issued by the Director, Municipal Administration, an authority not having any power to issue such instructions as contained in the Standing Order, did not have any force of law and the instructions were, at the most, administrative in nature, and, therefore, only had recommendatory effect. The petitioners' case thus has been that there has been no violation of any direction of law when the repair work was divided by them. The second charge was in respect of noncompliance with the instructions contained in the Standing Order No. 36, in particular clause no. 27 thereof, which prescribed qualifications of a contractor, and the contractor Shri Bambal, to whom the work was allotted, surrendered it to one Shri Surendra Lohi for its being carried out by the latter. According to the petitioners, clause 27 related to qualification of an agency to be appointed under clause (ii) of Section 49A and not to a rate contractor appointed under clause 19 of Standing Order No. 36 and, therefore, there was no violation of the said clause. It was also the case of the petitioners that there was no evidence to show that the work was actually surrendered to Shri Surendra Lohi. Charge no. 3 was about illegally passing the resolution on 07.5.2013 and committing dereliction of duty by not accepting the lowest tender submitted by one Shri S.L. Bhakte. Charge no. 4 was about recovery of excess payment made to the contractor. It was the contention of the petitioners that even the third and fourth charges were baseless as Shri Bhakte was appointed as a contractor for a different period than the period for which Shri Bambal was appointed. According to them