1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4314 of 2010 [Rajendra P. Ghanbahadur Vs. Akola Municipal Coporation, Akola & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 23rd August, 2011. 1. Learned Adv. Mrs. Dangre, at this stage, only points out that suitable reply to Show-cause-Notice has been given, but considering the drastic consequences which may ensue, request for breathing period of ten days, if order passed by Municipal Commissioner, is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. She is relying upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Prabhakar Shrirang Jagdale Vs. Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation, Kalyan & another [2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 423], to urge that disciplinary proceedings need to be initiated by General Body of Corporation and nobody else has got that jurisdiction. 2. Learned Adv. Shri C.S. Kaptan appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposes the 2 request for breathing time. He points out that all promotions were only temporary and last promotion in 2008 is not given by Corporation, but by Municipal Commissioner only. In this situation, he is relying upon Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur & another Vs. Ramchandra G. Modak & others [AIR 1984 SC 636], to contend that such administrative and supervisory powers are available to Municipal Commissioner because of his position which he occupies. 3. At this stage, we do not find it necessary to resolve the controversy. We find that on 12th August, 2010 a Show-cause-Notice has been served upon the petitioner, pointing out that all of his earlier promotions have been in purely temporary capacity. It appears that because of some enquiries conducted, the petitioner is found involved in effecting promotions wrongfully. Petitioner has given reply to that Show-cause-Notice. 4. The first promotion given to petitioner is in the year 1998. Thus, if impugned action as sought is allowed, the petitioner may lose the promotions from 14th December, 1998 onwards. 5. In this situation, we grant petitioner time of ten days if order passed by Municipal Commissioner/Competent Authority on Show-cause- Notice dated 12th August, 2010 is adverse to his interest. Said order shall not be implemented for ten days after its service upon petitioner. 3 6. The respondents are free to pass appropriate orders after considering reply submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest. 7. With these observations and directions, petition is disposed of. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|