Ashish Suresh Mahadadalkar v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Niranjan Mogre for petitioner. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE JJ. AUGUST 23, 2011. P.C.

The petitioner was, at the relevant time, holding the post of Assistant Octroi Superintendent and he was issued a show cause notice on 30/11/2009 pointing out the dereliction in duties and the casualness/ negligence in performance of supervisory duties. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 4/12/2009. The Municipal Commissioner, while exercising his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short the Act), 2 aswp-9421-10 conducted a summary enquiry by recording the statements of the Clerks concerned and as a result of the said enquiry, imposed the impugned punishment of stoppage of increment. One of the Clerks, namely, Smt. Ramtake specifically stated in her statement recorded during the summary enquiry that the petitioner had given oral instructions to keep the entry vacant in the inward and outward register and she had followed the said order given by the petitioner orally.

We have perused the scheme of Section 56 of the Act and it empowers the Municipal Commissioner to impose any of the penalties in Subsection (2) thereunder. However, so far as the punishments of suspension, removal and dismissal are concerned, the Corporation has framed the Service Rules and the procedure for awarding any of these major punishment has been described in Chapter VI of the said Rules. So far as the punishment of stoppage of increment is concerned, along with other minor penalties, is covered under Section 56(1) and (2) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was appointed by the Municipal Corporation and he could not have been punished by anyone other than the Corporation itself. We are not 3 aswp-9421-10 impressed by these submissions. Section 56 of the Act states that a competent authority may subject to the provisions of the Act impose any of the penalties specified in sub-section (2) on a municipal officer or servant if such authority is satisfied that such officer or servant is guilty of a breach of departmental rules or discipline or of carelessness, neglect of duty or other misconduct or is incompetent. The petitioner, as noted earlier, is holding the post of Assistant Octroi Superintendent, Class-II and Clause (c) of Section 56 (1) of the Act authorizes the Commissioner to impose any of the penalties as specified in Clauses (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (2) of the said Section. Clause (b) of Section 56(2) deals with the penalty of withholding of increments or promotion and, therefore, the Commissioner in the instant case is competent to impose the said punishment.

On any count, the petitioner’s challenge to the order of punishment is devoid of merits and, therefore, the petition must fail at the threshold.

Hence, the petition is rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHARTE J.)

(B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)