Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.KARNIK, S.M.MODAK, JJ.
Mrs. Kiran Bhalchandra Bramhane – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer, Ambernath Municipal Council, Ambernath, Thane – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11632 of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.5(1), R.5(iv)
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS NAGAR PANCHAYAT AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP ACT: S.79, S.79(1)(i), S.79(1)(ii), S.79(1)(iv), S.79(1)(v), S.79(vi)
PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL RULES: R.5
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Classification of Penalties - Withholding increments with cumulative effect not minor but major, as it postpones future increments forever; cannot be imposed without inquiry to avoid preposterous consequences. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner appointed as assistant teacher issued show cause notice for misconduct including troubling students, not allowing them in class, non-cooperation with administration, disobeying headmaster - Explanation considered; order imposed stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect under Rule 5(1) MCS Rules claimed as minor under Section 79 - No full inquiry held.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside to extent of major penalty aspect; modified to withholding of one increment simpliciter for one year without cumulative effect or stigma.
Issues: Whether stoppage of one annual increment with permanent/cumulative effect is minor or major penalty; whether full inquiry required; applicability of MCS Rules procedure to municipal employees.
Ratio Decidendi: Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is major penalty per Rule 5(v) as it reduces to lower stage perpetually, necessitating inquiry; Section 79 provides competency but MCS Rules procedure followed; leniency intended warrants modification sans full proceedings. Result : Writ petition partly allowed; penalty modified.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akshay Bramhane, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A.S.Rao, Advocate, Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. a/w Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges notice and increment stoppage punishment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is major penalty. (Para 4) |
| 3. chief officer empowered for minor penalties under section 79. (Para 5 , 12) |
| 4. competence to impose minor penalty acknowledged with leniency. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. cumulative increment stoppage equals major penalty reduction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. mcs rules procedure mandatory for major penalties. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. penalty modified to non-cumulative withholding without stigma. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S. KARNIK, J.
1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the show cause notice dated 17th March 2018 and the order dated 10th July 2018 issued by the respondent No.1–Chief Executive Officer–Ambernath Municipal Council, Ambernath (“Municipal Council”, for short).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner was appointed as an “Assistant Teacher” in the School run by the Municipal Council with effect from 3rd June 1995. On 17th March 2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation by the communication dated 24th March 2018. By the impugned order, in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (henceforth, “MCS Rules”), the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect was imposed on the petitioner.
3. The impugned order has been passed after considering the written explanation of the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is recorded that (a) time and again, the petitioner is responsible for troubling the students ; (b) not allowing them to sit in the class-room ; (c) non-cooperative attitude with the School administration ; (d) not following the orders of the Headmaster, which amount to breach of the discipline. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioner is committing such acts time and again which is affecting the discipline of the School.
4. Shri.Akshay Bramhane, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect is a major penalty. It is submitted that such a punishment cannot be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 8 of the MCS Rules which prescribes procedure for imposing major penalty.
5. Shri.Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–Municipal Council on the other hand supported the impugned order. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated that the petitioner was misbehaving and unnecessarily harassing the students. It is submitted that there is no need to conduct an inquiry if the punishment is minor in nature. It is submitted that under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (“the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965”, for short), the Chief Officer has been empowered to impose minor penalties vide proviso to Sub- section (2) as detailed in Section 79 (1), (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of which Section 79 (1)(ii) says “withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar”.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the memo of the Writ Petition, relevant and the Affidavit-in-Reply.
7. From the Affidavit-in-Reply and from the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondents, it is seen that the Chief Officer is empowered to impose minor penalties under the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated that though the misconduct alleged was of serious nature, however, with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner, a lenient view has been taken and accordingly, a minor punishment has been imposed. The Chief Officer is competent to impose minor penalty under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.
8. Thus,
