FA/115619/1981 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1156 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUNICIPAL CORPN OF AHMEDABAD - Appellant(s) Versus MAHENDRABHAI J MEHTA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MG NAGARKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SN SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR VH DIXIT for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 1981 passed in Municipal Suit No. 4009 of 1977, by the City Civil Court No. 21 whereby, FA/115619/1981 2/4 JUDGMENT the learned trial Judge while allowing the Suit had set aside the order dated 8th July, 1977 passed by the Municipal Commissioner and directed the appellant- original respondents to reinstate the respondent-original plaintiff in his original post and shall pay all the benefits forthwith. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The respondent-original plaintiff was working as an Assistant Accountant in the Central Workshop of the appellant-Corporation. On account of certain irregularities committed by the respondent-original plaintiff, the appellant-Corporation after issuing the charge sheet and initiating departmental inquiry, imposed penalty of demoting the respondent-original plaintiff to the lower post of Senior Clerk for a period of two years, from the post he was then holding. Against the said order of the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit being Municipal Suit No. 4009 of 1977 before the City Civil Court No. 21, challenging the legality of the order of punishment imposed upon him. 2.2. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, FA/115619/1981 3/4 JUDGMENT allowed the Suit and passed the aforesaid order. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Corporation has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3.0. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. In view of the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, certain powers are delegated to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. However, considering the evidence on record, and the reasonings assigned by the learned trial Judge, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, has no power to impose any penalty or issue the charge sheet. Hence, the learned trial Judge had vitiated the charge sheet imposed upon the respondent, and directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent in his original post and further directed t to pay all the benefits forthwith. 3.1. Considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and hence, find no reason to interfere in this Appeal. FA/115619/1981 4/4 JUDGMENT 4.0. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni