Stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative/permanent effect is a major penalty under service rules, equating to reduction to lower pay stage, requiring full departmental inquiry; may be modified to minor if leniency intended.

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 17^th March 2018 and the order dated 10^th 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 3^rd June 1995. On 17^th March 2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation by the communication dated 24^th 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,