Mandatory disciplinary procedure for municipal dismissal defeated limitation protection where dismissal was passed without required findings and reasons.

A municipal employee's dismissal had to comply with the mandatory disciplinary procedure under Rule 35 of the 1960 Rules, including the required reasons and findings. Because the dismissal order was passed without following that procedure, it was illegal, void and beyond jurisdiction. An order made in plain violation of mandatory statutory procedure cannot be treated as an act done in pursuance of, execution of, or intended execution of the Act, since statutory power must be exercised only in the manner prescribed. On that basis, the protective limitation bar under Section 253(1)(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 did not apply, and the suit challenging the dismissal was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit challenging the dismissal from municipal service was barred by limitation under Section 253(1)(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, and whether an order of dismissal passed in violation of the mandatory disciplinary rules could be treated as an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act.

Analysis: The dismissal of a municipal employee had to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed by Rule 35 of the Morvi City Municipal Officers and Servants, Conduct, Discipline, Dismissal, Penalty and Appeal etc., Rules 1960. The dismissal order was found to have been passed without following that procedure and without recording the reasons and findings required by the Rules. An action taken in plain violation of the mandatory procedure could not be regarded as an act done in pursuance of, execution of, or intended execution of the Act, because statutory power must be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the statute and not otherwise. Since the dismissal was illegal, void, and beyond jurisdiction, the protective limitation provision in Section 253(1)(a) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, the dismissal order was held to be outside the protection of Section 253(1)(a), and the challenge to the dismissal succeeded.

---