JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India while taking exception to the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 Collector terminating his services with the respondent No.3 Municipal Council, Bodwad from the post of clerk, by invoking the powers under Section 79 (1) read with Section 8 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter the Act) and Rule 5(8) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979. He is also challenging the order passed by the Director of Municipal Administration dated 29.09.2018 whereby his appeal preferred under Section 79 (6) of the Act has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in Gram Panchayat, Bodwad on 29.10.2004. By virtue of a notification issued by the State Government under the Act, the Gram Panchayat was transformed as a Municipal Council. Being an employee of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat the petitioner took initiative for the rights and demands of such employees transferred from the erstwhile establishment. As a representative of association of such employees, he met the respondent No.3. Alleging that during such meeting the Chief Officer had insulted and abused him on caste lines. He lodged an FIR with the police under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 12.07.2017.

4. Alleging that the petitioner abused, threatened and assaulted the Chief Officer during that meeting on 13.07.2017 the Chief Officer suspended him and initiated a Disciplinary Inquiry. A show cause notice was served to him. He tendered his reply. The inquiry was conducted by the Chief Officer of Municipal Council Savada. He was found guilty of the charge and a report was submitted to the respondent No.2 Collector. He was served with the report of the inquiry and after hearing him, by the order under challenge he was held to have been guilty of the charge and was terminated by the respondent No.2 Collector. The petitioner preferred the Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner but it has been turned down.

5. The learned advocate Mr. Bhapkar primarily questioned the power and competence of the Collector to impose the punishment. He would submit that by virtue of the provisions of Section 79 of the Act, the Collector was not competent to act as a Disciplinary Authority. He would refer to the provisions of Section 78 (C) and 79 of the Act. Even the Divisional Commissioner has erred in not appreciating these provisions while refuting the argument. He would therefore submit that apart from the merits independently touching the proof or otherwise of the charges, the inquiry is defective.

6. Per contra, the learned AGP submitted that there is no error in Collector exercising a power under Section 79. The State Government has delegated such powers pursuant to the provision of Section 76(3) to the Collector by the Government Resolution dated 19.03.2016 (Exhibit R-2). As far as merits she would submit that the charge is indeed serious. The petitioner has in an aggressive manner assaulted the Chief Officer in his chamber and there were witnesses examined during the inquiry. Principles of natural justice were followed and opportunity of being heard was extended before inflicting the punishment.

7. Since the basic issue as regards the powers of the Collector to act as a Disciplinary Authority is being raised, it is imperative that it needs a specific attention as it goes to the root of the inquiry.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was working as a clerk which is Class III post and the provisions of the Act and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules