Manisha Arjun Sakore v. Pune Municipal Corporation

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This is an example of a lady teacher having been ill-treated by the employer Corporation. As we unfold the dates and sequence of events in this judgment, the reasons for terming this case to be an example of ill-treatment, would become evident.

3. The dates and sequence of events are as under: (a) The Pune Municipal Corporation, School Education Department (Primary), claimed to have received a complaint of a girl student alleging that the Petitioner, who is a lady teacher, did not treat her properly. Based on the said complaint, the Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 27th February, 2025. By the said notice, without giving the Petitioner a copy of the complaint lodged by a parent or a group of students, she is called upon to show cause as to why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for having used a word which appears to be directed towards the social status of the student (casteist remark). (b) The contents of the show cause notice do not indicate as to what is alleged against the Petitioner. She was directed to submit a reply within 24 hours (लेखी खीले सा उलेट टपा ले इकडी ले क र्या लेर्या सा 24 ता सा ता सा दर कर वा.).

(c) The alleged complaint is dated 8.1.2025, the show cause notice is dated 27.2.2025 and the Petitioner is granted 24 hours to submit a reply.

(d) The Petitioner tendered a reply dated 28.2.2025 and since the Deputy Commissioner, Education Department (Primary) had asked for the reply to be tendered through Post, the Petitioner submitted the reply through Speed Post. (e) The receipt of the Speed Post A/D envelop indicates that she registered the envelop at 10.54 hours on 28.2.2025. 1st March, 2025 and 2nd March, 2025 was Saturday and Sunday. (f) The Corporation neither admits nor denies that the envelop was delivered to the Corporation on 3rd March, 2025. The print out of the tracking report obtained from the India Post website is placed on record which indicates that the envelop was delivered to the Corporation on 3rd March 2025, to Ms. Asha Raut, who is Deputy Commissioner, Education Department (Primary). (g) The impugned order is passed on 7.3.2025 stating in the order that the reply is not received by the Corporation until 3.3.2025. Between 3.3.2025 to 7.3.2025, there were five working days and the Authority claims that there is no reply delivered by the Petitioner.

4. In the above backdrop, we have adverted to Section 56 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Acts, more specifically, Chapter “Imposition of Penalties”. For brevity, we are reproducing Section 56 of the Act hereunder:

56. Imposition of penalties on municipal officers and servants.— (1) A competent authority may subject to the provisions of this Act impose any of the penalties specified in sub-section (2) on a municipal officer or servant if such authority is satisfied that such officer or servant is guilty of a breach of departmental rules or discipline or of carelessness, neglect of duty or other misconduct or is incompetent: Provided that,— (a) no municipal officer or servant [holding the post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of the Assistant Commissioner] shall be dismissed by the Commissioner without the previous approval of the [Corporation]. [(b) any officer or servant whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority, except Transport Manager being a Government officer on deputation, may be suspended by the Commissioner pending an order of the Corporation and when the officer so suspended is the Transport Manager or an officer appointed under section 45, such suspension with reasons therefor, shall, forthwith be reported by the Commissioner to the Corporation, and such suspension shall come to an end if not confirmed by the Corporation within a period of six months from the date of such suspension: Provided that, such suspension of an officer or servant pending inquiry into the allegations against such officer or servant shall not be deemed to be a penalty.]

(c) the Commissioner may impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (a), (b) [* *] [(e) and (f)] of sub-section (2) on any officer appointed by the Corporation [other than the Transport Manager if he is a Government officer on deputation];

(d) the Municipal Chief Auditor and the Municipal Secretary may impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (2) on any officer or servant immediately subordinate to them [* * * * *] subject to a right of appeal to the Standing Committee and the Standing Committee may impose any other penalty on any such officer or servant and may also impose any penalty on any other officer or servant immediately subordinate to the Municipal Chief Auditor or the Municipal Secretary. [Explanation.— For the purposes of this section and section 53, a post shall be deemed to be a rank equivalent to another post if the minimum and maximum pay in the pay scale of both the posts are same. A post shall be deemed to be of a rank higher than another post, if the minimum pay in pay scale of former is at least equivalent to the later, but the maximum is higher than the later. In respect of the pay structure, a post shall be deemed to be of a rank equivalent to, or higher than another post, if the grade pay in pay structure of the former is equivalent to or higher than the later, respectively.] (2) The penalties which may be imposed under this section are the following, namely:— (a) censure; (b) with holding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(c) reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale;

(d) fine;

(e) recovery from salary of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation; (f) suspension; (g) removal from municipal service which does not disqualify from future employment; (h) dismissal from municipal service which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. (3) No officer or servant shall be reduced to a lower post or removed or dismissed from service under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such reduction, removal or dismissal: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply,— (a) where a person is reduced, removed or dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the competent authority is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, it is reasonably practicable to give that person an opportunity of showing cause. (4) Subject to the provisions of clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1), any municipal officer or servant who is reduced, removed or dismissed by any authority other than the Corporation may, within one month of the communication to him of the order of reduction, removal or dismissal, appeal to the authority immediately superior to the authority which imposed the penalty and the appellate authority may, after obtaining the remarks of the authority which imposed the penalty, either confirm the order passed or substitute for it such order as it considers just, including an order for the imposition of some lesser penalty, and effect shall forthwith be given to any order passed by the appellate authority which shall be conclusive: Provided that for the purposes of this sub-section the Standing Committee shall be deemed to be the authority immediately superior to the Commissioner and the Corporation shall be deemed to be the authority immediately superior to the Standing Committee. (5) With reference to officers and servants appointed under Chapter XX the provisions of this section shall apply as if for the word “Commissioner” the words “Transport Manager” and for the words “Standing Committee” the words ‘‘Transport Committee’’ had been substituted. Explanation.— (1) For the purposes of this section a competent authority is the authority which under the provisions of this Act is competent to make the appointment to the post held by the particular municipal officer or servant. (2) The monthly salary which would ordinarily be admissible to a municipal officer or servant on the date immediately preceding the date of the order imposing a penalty shall be deemed to be his salary for the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (1).

5. It is, thus, apparent that Section 56 permits two types of suspensions. Firstly, that an employee can be placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Secondly, an employee can be punished with an order of suspension, by way of punishment, which is after enquiry when the charges are proved. In this backdrop, we have perused the impugned order. A cursory glance at the order would indicate that the same has been passed without application of mind, hurriedly, rather in undue haste and without even perusing Section 56(2)(f), which indicates that the said order of suspension would fall under subsection 2 which provides for imposition of penalties.

6. The fact situation, therefore, is that, on the one hand, the Petitioner’s reply was not even considered, rather it is contended that it never reached the officer. On the other hand, no charge was framed against her. The allegation that she used a casteist word is also not brought to her notice. The copy of the complaint of a girl student is also not supplied to the Petitioner. The show cause notice is completely silent about the contents of the Complaint and as to what is the charge against the Petitioner. To make things worse, the Petitioner has been suspended sine die by the impugned order stating that she will remain under suspension with retrospective effect from 3.3.2025. The Petitioner contends that she was working between 3.3.2025 to 7.3.2025. Apparently, the order of suspension is served upon the Petitioner on 11.3.2025, which is visible from the remark on the impugned order placed before us.

7. As such, though the impugned order can be faulted for reasons more than one, primarily, the order is illegal for the reason that without following the due procedure of conducting disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner has been suspended presuming that she is guilty of such charges, which were never levelled upon her. Secondly, she has been suspended sine die.