Supervisory control includes power to suspend pending disciplinary inquiry where the statute vests effective disciplinary authority.

Section 59(3)(b) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 was construed as vesting the Municipal Commissioner with wide executive and supervisory control over municipal officers and servants, including authority over service conditions. The Court held that the expression "control", read with "vests", carries effective disciplinary jurisdiction and incidental powers necessary to exercise it. On that construction, suspension pending a departmental inquiry fell within the Commissioner's authority, and the High Court erred in treating the suspension as without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Municipal Commissioner was competent under Section 59(3) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 to suspend the respondents pending a departmental inquiry.

Analysis: Section 59(3)(b) vested the entire executive power in the Commissioner and expressly authorised him to exercise supervision and control over municipal officers and servants and to dispose of questions relating to their service conditions. The expression "control", read with the word "vests", was held to denote wide and effective authority, including disciplinary jurisdiction and steps incidental or consequential to that power. Relying on the settled meaning of control under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that suspension pending disciplinary inquiry fell within that ambit.

Conclusion: The Municipal Commissioner had the authority to suspend the respondents pending departmental inquiry, and the High Court was wrong in holding the suspension without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute vests supervisory control in an authority, that control includes the power to suspend an employee pending disciplinary proceedings as an incident of disciplinary jurisdiction.

---