Chandrachud, J. - (1.)The appellant, who was working as a Sanitary Inspector in the respondent-municipality, was dismissed from service under a resolution of its Sanitary Committee dated October 10, 1955. On March 1, 1956, he brought the present suit to challenge the order of dismissal and to recover arrears of salary, damages, etc., on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice contained in Rule 177 of the Rules of the Municipality and was therefore void and illegal.
(2.)The trial Court gave to the plaintiff a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful. It rejected his contention that the dismissal was void and declined to grant him the declaration that he continued to be in the service of the municipality. Instead, it awarded to him a sum equivalent to a month's salary in lieu of the period of notice, in view of Rule 217 under which a municipal servant is liable to be discharged at a month's notice. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar.
(3.)This second appeal came up for hearing before Patel and Wagle, JJ. on September 2, 1968 when counsel drew their attention to a conflict of opinion in this Court on the question whether an order of dismissal of a municipal servant in breach of a rule governing the conditions of his service renders the order void so as to entitle the employee to a declaration that he continues to be in service and to arrears of salary or whether it renders the order merely wrongful so as to entitle the employee only to salary in lieu of the period of notice. Expressing themselves in favour of the latter view, the learned Judges have referred for the opinion of the Full Bench the following questions : "1. Whether a breach of a rule regarding an enquiry into the conduct of a municipal servant before his dismissal from employment entails the same consequence as a breach of provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution ? 2. If a municipal servant is dismissed in breach of such a rule, what would be the relief to which he would be entitled ?"