Summary
The City Engineer’s dismissal was restored because the General Board, which undisputedly possessed dismissal power, had ratified the Commissioner’s decision. The original delegation covered purchase-related lapses and did not itself authorise the impugned action, but the competent authority’s ratification cured the irregularity on these facts. Monthly sums paid under the Supreme Court’s interim order were protected from recovery.
Issues
- Whether the delegation authorised dismissal for the misconduct in issue.
- Whether subsequent ratification by the competent General Board cured the authority defect.
Held
- The disciplinary findings stood upheld; the High Court had set dismissal aside solely for want of the Commissioner’s authority. Resolution 51, properly read, conferred authority for purchase-related lapses only, rather than all works and misconduct. The Court agreed with that limited interpretation. (¶¶ 7, 7.1)
- Nevertheless, the General Board’s power to dismiss was undisputed and it had expressly ratified the Commissioner’s decision through Resolution 56 as amended. In these circumstances the act was not per se void ab initio, and the competent authority’s ratification cured the irregularity. Pannalal Choudhury applied; Marathwada University was distinguishable. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2)
- The High Court judgments were set aside and dismissal restored. Despite that result, the Rs.10,000 monthly payments made from 1 April 2012 under the Supreme Court’s interim direction were not recoverable from the respondent. (¶ 7.3)
Result
Corporation’s appeal allowed without costs; dismissal restored. Amounts paid under the Supreme Court’s interim monthly-payment direction not to be recovered.