( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.83 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.83 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.83 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.6142 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6142 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6142 OF 2008 Suresh Limbaji Waghmare .. Petitioner V/s Thane Mun.Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Mayuresh Modgi for the Petitioner. Mr.N.R.Bubna for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2009. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2009. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the employee of the Respondent Corporation aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge upholding the finding of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 2. The Appellant is working as a Tax Collector with the Thane Municipal Corporation and was assigned duty of collection of property tax in Ward No.9. It was found that his recovery of taxes was only to the extent of 5.66% and therefore show cause notice was given to the Appellant to which he did not reply, which resulted in passing an order of punishment of withholding one yearly increment on 31.1.2004. After the order of punishment was passed, the Appellant filed reply to the show cause notice. ( 2 ) 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Municipal Corporation could not have imposed this minor penalty as it does not find place in the Model Standing Order. Learned Counsel for the Appellant did not press this ground as clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 does authorise the imposition of penalties on Municipal Officer or servamt of the nature of withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficieny bar. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also cited the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sultan Khan V/s.Principal, Sultan Khan V/s.Principal, Sultan Khan V/s.Principal, B.N.College of Engineering, Pusad 2008 (2) ALL MR 183. B.N.College of Engineering, Pusad 2008 (2) ALL MR 183. B.N.College of Engineering, Pusad 2008 (2) ALL MR 183. This decision does not come to the rescue of the Appellant as the facts in that case were totally different. In the case of Sultan Khan the Petitioner was not even served with the chargesheet and was not given a reasonable and fair opportunity of defence and therefore, penalty of punishment of stoppage of three increments without holding full fledged formal enquiry was quashed and set aside. In the present case, it is the case of minor penalty for which the Corporation had issued the show cause notice to the Appellant, to which he did not reply. ( 3 ) 5. Another contention raised before us is that in his ward there were two companies, over which the Court Receiver was appointed and that he had reported this matter to his superior. Nothing prevented the Appellant from recovering the property taxes from the Receiver. 6. We therefore do not find any merits in the matter. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality in upholding the decision of the Industrial Court. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of L.P.A.itself, nothing further survives in the Civil Application No.12 of 2009. Hence, the Civil Application No.12 of 2009 also stands disposed of. (J.N.PATEL, J.) (J.N.PATEL, J.) (J.N.PATEL, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)