Supreme Court Overturns High Court Judgment, Decrees in Favor of Appellant

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decreeing the suit of the appellant with costs amounting to Rs. 20,000. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ruled that the dismissal of the appellant was not valid under the Act due to non-compliance with the Rules, thereby overturning the High Court's decision on the limitation period.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of the dismissal of an employee by a Municipality and the applicability of the limitation period under Section 253(1)(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.

Legality of Dismissal:
The appellant, an Overseer with Morvi Municipality, was dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down in the Morvi City Municipal Officers and Servants, Conduct, Discipline, Dismissal, Penalty and Appeal Rules 1960. The High Court found that the dismissal was illegal as it did not comply with Rule 35 of the Rules, which required specific steps to be followed before imposing a penalty. The High Court concluded that the order of dismissal was illegal and inoperative as it did not adhere to the rules. The dismissal order was deemed to be void due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure.

Applicability of Limitation Period:
The High Court held that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation under Section 253(1)(a) of the Act, which required any suit against a municipality to be filed within six months of the cause of action accruing. Despite finding the Municipality's actions to be in violation of rules and lacking reasons for dismissal, the High Court determined that the act was in intended execution of the Act, thus attracting the limitation period. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the dismissal was not an act done in pursuance or execution of the Act due to the clear violation of the Rules. The Court emphasized that powers under a statute must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the dismissal order, issued without following the prescribed procedure, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board and not an act done under the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decreeing the suit of the appellant with costs amounting to Rs. 20,000. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ruled that the dismissal of the appellant was not valid under the Act due to non-compliance with the Rules, thereby overturning the High Court's decision on the limitation period.

---