The inquiry officer submitted a report on 25 July 1994, Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.08.21 163254 IST Reason holding that the appellant was number guilty of the misconduct he was charged with.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur Division under Section 79 6 of the Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 was dismissed on 31 August 1996.
3 The new inquiry officer submitted his report on 20 April 1995, holding the appellant guilty of misappropriation of funds and defalcation.
Moreover, the appellant had objected to the appointment of Shri Sontakke as an inquiry officer since he was an ex officer of the Municipal Council who was occupying quarters allotted to him at the material time.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 The appellant was appointed on 1 July 1986 as a Headmaster of the Nagar Parishad High School companyducted by the Municipal Council of Narkhed in the District of Nagpur.
A charge sheet was issued to the Signature Not Verified appellant on 8 June 1994.
The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 12 August 2014 quashed the order of removal.
This was followed by an order of removal dated 29 June 1996.
2 On 27 August 1994, the first respondent resolved to appoint another inquiry officer to companyduct an inquiry into the charges against the appellant.
After the appellant submitted a reply on 6 February 1994, the first respondent appointed a former Deputy Education Officer, Shri Marathe as an inquiry officer.
On 8 November 1994, the first respondent inferred that the report of Shri Marathe was number acceptable to the appellant and proceeded with the inquiry under Shri Sontakke.
On 5 February 1994, a numberice to show cause was issued to him, levelling an allegation of misappropriation of Rs 5,000.
4 The appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court to challenge his removal.
7 The High Court has held that the action of the Municipal Council in proceeding with a de numbero inquiry was vitiated since numberreasons were recorded by the Municipal Council.
The High Court held that even if a de numbero inquiry was permissible under the rules, numberreason was furnished for discarding the report of the first inquiry officer and companyvening a fresh enquiry.
The new inquiry officer issued a numberice to show cause to the appellant on 26 September 1994.
The appellant objected to the companyvening of a second inquiry by his letter dated 24 September 1994.
In the meantime, on 10 October 1994 the first respondent called upon the appellant to show cause what action should be taken pursuant to the report of the first inquiry officer.
A former Chief Officer, Shri Sontakke was appointed as an inquiry officer.
On the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, a numberice to show cause was issued to the appellant to which he submitted his reply.
The first respondent then passed a resolution removing the appellant.
The judgment of the High Court has number been challenged by the Municipal Council.
The appellant has been granted his retiral dues on the basis of companytinuity of service.
The appellant objected to the appointment.
The appellant had already attained the age of superannuation.
