IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding natural justice and constitutional rights in disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalties.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation and prayed inter alia that:-

“29(A) admit this petition;

(B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 17.1.2011 as the same is violative of principles of natural justice, Article-14 of the constitution and the same is also violative of various rules and regulations;

(B1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the modified penalty order dated 3/5/2014, and direct the respondents to make good all the financial losses suffered by the petitioner till date.

(C) grant stay of further operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 17/1/2011 pending the admission and final hearing of the petition;

D) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Sub-Sanitary Inspector in Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 15.11.1973. In December 1983 he was promoted to Sanitary Inspector and then in 2001 he was promoted to Senior Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner was given all the three higher pay scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. By order dated 4/4/2003 the petitioner was transferred in Health Branch and was given posting on the vacant post of Birth-Death Officer's Post. The said work attached to the post of Birth-Date Officer's Post was the additional work over and above the duties of Senior Sanitary Inspector which were being discharged by the petitioner when the order dated 4/4/2003 came to be passed. Thus, it is admitted fact that the petitioner was given additional charge for the post of Birth- Death Officer. The petitioner was also given additional charge of Additional Senior Sanitary Inspector for Ward No.3 which was all together additional charge for all together different post. Thus, the fact remains that the petitioner was given three charges, namely, (i) Charge for the Post of Senior Sanitary Inspector (Court matters); (ii) Charge of Birth and Death Officer's Post and (iii) Additional charge of Senior Sanitary Inspector's Post of Ward No.3.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order/communication dated 18/10/2004 by which the petitioner was placed under Suspension. The main ground of suspension was to the effect that the petitioner had failed to maintain the Birth- Death Register and has also failed to maintain and supervise the incidental record of Birth and Death and as the Departmental Inquiry was under contemplation, the petitioner was placed under Suspension vide order dated 18/10/2004.

2.2 Against the aforesaid order dated 18/10/2004 by which the petitioner was placed under Suspension, the petitioner had approached before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.4184/2005. The said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 16/3/2005.

2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred representation, however, the concerned respondent authorities have rejected the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a communication/Notice dated 30/11/2004 in which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the Disciplinary Proceedings under the provisions of Sec. 56(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act be not initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 8/12/2004 and it was pointed-out that he had not indulged into any irregularity/ misconduct as alleged in the communication dated 30/11/2004. Thereafter, the respondent authorities sent a communication dated 3/6/2005 and along with the said communication, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 3/6/2005. In all there were four charges were leveled against the petitioner.

2.4 Consideri