Case: Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. The Collector, District Raigad

of the Council within a period of two months from the date on which the last preceding ordinary meeting was held. The statutory provisions further provided that in case the President fails to call the ordinary meeting within the said stipulated period, the Chief Officer may report such failure to the Collector and the Collector can call the ordinary meeting of the Council following the procedure prescribed therein. The President can also call the meeting on the request of the members not less than one-fourth of the total number of councils. Therefore, the cogent reading of all the provisions makes it clear that in case the President fails to call the meeting, there are other modes of calling the meeting and in such an eventuality where reasonable explanation has been furnished by the appellant to the show cause notice on this count, the competent authority could not have passed such a harsh order. 47. So far as the other charges regarding laying down the pipelines at a much higher rate are concerned, it has been a positive case of the appellant that as earlier contractor had abandoned the work in between and there was a scarcity of water in the city, the Chief Officer, the Junior Engineer considered the technical aspect and then recommendations were forwarded under the signatures of the appellant, the Chief Officer and Junior Engineer to the council, which ultimately passed the resolution accepting the said tenders. In such a fact-situation, it was a collective consensus decision of the house after due deliberations. Admittedly, it was not even the ratification of contract awarded by the appellant himself. Thus, even by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held to be an individual decision of the appellant and the competent authority failed to appreciate that the tenders were accepted by the Council itself and not by the appellant alone. Therefore, he could not be held responsible for acceptance of tenders. We have gone through the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, complainant before this court and he has not stated anywhere that the tenders were not accepted by the council, rather allegations have been made that the tenders had been accepted at a higher rate so that the contractor could get the financial gain. Similarly, technical issue has been raised for not calling the meeting, committing serious irregularities sufficiently warranting dis-qualification of the appellant on his omission to call the meeting, but it is not his case that he did it intentionally. The counter affidavit filed by the State does not reveal anything in relation to the issues involved herein and it appears that the deponent/officer has merely completed the formalities without any purpose. 48. To conclude, we are of the considered opinion and that too after appreciation of the entire evidence on record that the first charge proved against the appellant for not calling the meeting of Council, did not warrant the order of removal and the explanation furnished by appellant could have been accepted. Other charges could not be proved against the appellant, in view of the fact, that the tenders at a higher rate were accepted by the Council itself and the appellant could not be held exclusively responsible for it. The Respondent no. 5, being a political rival, could not have been entertained as a party to the lis. The charge of not calling the meeting of the Council had been admitted by the appellant himself, thus, no further evidence was required, for the reason, that the admission is the best evidence. The competent authority could have considered his explanation alone and proceeded to take a final decision. So far as the other charges are concerned, as has been observed hereinabove, it had been a consensus collective decision of the Council to accept the tender at higher rate and the appellant could not have been held guilty of the said charges. Thus, the instant case has been a crystal clear cut case of legal malice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The duly elected member/chairman of the council could not have been removed in such a casual and cavalier manner without giving strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the statute which had to be scrupulously followed. 49. The appellant has raised a question of fact before the High Court as well as before this Court submitting that at the time of hearing before the Honble Chief Minister, respondent No.5 has raised new grounds and the appellant raised serious objections as he had no opportunity to meet the same. Thus, in order to give the appellant an opportunity to rebut the same the competent authority had adjourned the case and directed the Secretary to fix a date so that the appellant may meet those new objections/grounds. However, the order impugned removing the appellant from the post and declaring him further disqualified for a period of six years had been passed. It is not evident from the order impugned as what could be those new grounds which had not been disclosed to the appellant. Thus, to ascertain as to whether in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to meet the alleged new grounds, the competent authority had adjourned the case, this Court while reserving the judgment vide order dated 13.2.2012 asked the learned Standing Counsel for the State Shri Mike Prakash Desai to produce the original record before this Court within a period of two weeks. For the reasons best known to the State Authorities neither the record has been produced before us, nor any application has been filed to extend the time to produce the same.In fact, this Court has been deprived of seeing the original record and to examine the grievance of the appellant. We express our grave concern and shock the way the State Authorities has treated the highest court of the land. In such a fact-situation, the court has no option except to draw the adverse inference against the State.50. In view of the above,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]we are of the considered opinion and that too after appreciation of the entire evidence on record that the first charge proved against the appellant for not calling the meeting of Council, did not warrant the order of removal and the explanation furnished by appellant could have been accepted. Other charges could not be proved against the appellant, in view of the fact, that the tenders at a higher rate were accepted by the Council itself and the appellant could not be held exclusively responsible for it. The Respondent no. 5, being a political rival, could not have been entertained as a party to the lis. The charge of not calling the meeting of the Council had been admitted by the appellant himself, thus, no further evidence was required, for the reason, that the admission is the best evidence. The competent authority could have considered his explanation alone and proceeded to take a final decision. So far as the other charges are concerned, as has been observed hereinabove, it had been a consensus collective decision of the Council to accept the tender at higher rate and the appellant could not have been held guilty of the said charges. Thus, the instant case has been a crystal clear cut case of legal malice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The duly elected member/chairman of the council could not have been removed in such a casual and cavalier manner without giving strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the statute which had to be scrupulouslyorder impugned removing the appellant from the post and declaring him further disqualified for a period of six years had been passed. It is not evident from the order impugned as what could be those new grounds which had not been disclosed to the appellant. Thus, to ascertain as to whether in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to meet the alleged new grounds, the competent authority had adjourned the case, this Court while reserving the judgment vide order dated 13.2.2012 asked the learned Standing Counsel for the State Shri Mike Prakash Desai to produce the original record before this Court within a period of two weeks. For the reasons best known to the State Authorities neither the record has been produced before us, nor any application has been filed to extend the time to produce the same.In fact, this Court has been deprived of seeing the original record and to examine the grievance of the appellant. We express our grave concern and shock the way the State Authorities has treated the highest court of the land. In such a fact-situation, the court has no option except to draw the adverse inference against the State.