HC rejects plea against Bhatia8217;s removal

MUMBAI, NOV 18: The Bombay High Court on Thursday summarily rejected a petition that challenged the validity of section 36 3 in the Bom...

MUMBAI, NOV 18: The Bombay High Court on Thursday summarily rejected a petition that challenged the validity of section 36 3 in the Bombay Provincial Corporation Act BPMC Act that had eventually been used to remove IAS officer, Arun Bhatia as the municipal commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation PMC.

Holding that the petition could not be entertained as a public interest petition since Bhatia could pursue his interests himself, the bench rejected the petition that had been filed by the Bhrashtachar Pratibandh Mandal. The petitioners had challenged the validity of the section 36 3 of the act, which dealt with the appointment and removal of the municipal commissioner. According to sub section 3 of this clause, a municipal commissioner could be removed from his chair if a resolution to this effect, citing either incapacity of the officer, or moral turpitude or neglect of duty, is passed with a 5/8th majority of the corporation. Accordingly on June 9, 1999 the PMC had passed the resolution against Bhatia. However, it is not mandatory under this section for the government to accept this resolution.

Nonetheless, advocate for the petitioners, Dr Avinash Shiwade argued that in this case, the resolution was faxed to the State Government and a person also took the last flight to Mumbai, carrying the original copy of the resolution to the then chief minister, Narayan Rane who was waiting for it and immediately the removal orders of Bhatia were signed. While the resolution was passed at 3.45 pm, Bhatia was removed by 7.10 pm.

Shiwade argued that the section 3 ought to be struck off, because firstly it laid down a parallel course of discipline for IAS officers who are guided by their own rules and service regulations. By taking a decision whereby the officer is held 8220;incapable of service8221; and hence to be removed, he should then be 8220;incapable8221; for every service and not just that post. But, Shiwade argued that is not so. In such cases, these decisions are political decisions taken by the majority party in the corporation. He argued that natural laws of justice are not followed in such matters, and in Bhatia8217;s case, he was not even given time to speak against the charges laid out against him.

Shiwade argued that the immediate signing of the removal order by the chief minister, showed total lack of application of mind.

However, the bench of the Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice Ranjana Desai held that 8220;every petition against a transfer need not be a PIL8221; and rejected the petition.