- (1.)THE appellant is a Ward Supervisor in the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. THE appellant thinks that on account of his merit and service he should have been appointed to one of the three posts namely, (1) Accountant, (2) Chief Inspector of Octroi, and (3) Office Superintendent and as other persons have been appointed on these three posts the appellant have come up in appeal to the Board of Revenue. (1) (1964) 15 STC32.
(2.)THE counsel for the appellant admits that there has been no departmental enquiry against the appellant. THE counsel for appellant also states that in the case of the appellant there was a withholding of promotion and that, therefore, the appellant's ease is covered by Item (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). When there has been no departmental enquiry against the appellant the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. THE word "penalties" in sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Act obviously contemplates a punishment. Penalties are imposed and punishments are given only if the person in question is found to have done something wrong. "Withholding of promotion" in Item (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Act contemplates those cases where after holding a departmental enquiry an order is passed to the effect that the person against whom the departmental enquiry is held, will not be considered for promotion either for a specified period or for ever. Such is not the case here. Simply because the appellant has not been promoted to one of the three posts mentioned above it does not mean that a penalty has been imposed on him, as a penalty can only be imposed after a departmental enquiry is held in which the person against whom the departmental enquiry is held is found guilty of some charge or charges. So I hold that no penalty has been imposed on the appellant under sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Act. THE appellant obviously has not been discharged during the period of probation. Sub-section (7) of section 60 of the Act does not apply to the present case. Under rule 3 of the Rules framed under sub-section (7) of section 60 of the Act (vide Notification No. 7-U-XVIII dated the 31 January, 1963), only an appeal under sub-section (7) of section 60 of the Act lies before the Board of Revenue. So the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction over this appeal which is, therefore, summarily rejected. Appeal rejected.