MRS. KIRAN BHALCHANDRA BRAMHANE vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMBERNATH MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:9457-DB
7-WP-11632-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11632 OF 2018
1. Mrs.Kiran Bhalchandra Bramhane,
Asstt. Teacher, Ambernath Nagar Palika,
School No.1, Ambernath. ...Petitioner
Digitally signed
by SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date:
2026.02.24
19:31:44
+0530
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Ambernath Municipal Council,
Ambernath, District : Thane.
2. The Administrative Officer,
Ambernath Municipal Council,
Ambernath, District : Thane.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zillha Parishad, Thane.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Urban Development
Department & Education Department,,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400032.
5. The Head Mistress,
Ambernath Nagar Palika, School No.1,
Ambernath, District : Thane. ...Respondents
*
Mr.Akshay Bramhane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2–Ambernath
Municipal Council.
Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt.G.R.Raghuwanshi, AGP, for
the Respondent No.4-State.
*
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
th
DATE : 13 FEBRUARY 2026
1/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)

1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the
th
Constitution of India is to the show cause notice dated 17 March
th
2018 and the order dated 10 July 2018 issued by the respondent
No.1–Chief Executive Officer–Ambernath Municipal Council,
Ambernath (“Municipal Council”, for short).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner was
appointed as an “Assistant Teacher” in the School run by the Municipal
rd th
Council with effect from 3 June 1995. On 17 March 2018, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct. The
petitioner submitted a detailed explanation by the communication
th
dated 24 March 2018. By the impugned order, in terms of Rule 5(1)
of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979
(henceforth, “MCS Rules”), the punishment of stoppage of one annual
increment with permanent effect was imposed on the petitioner.
3. The impugned order has been passed after considering the
written explanation of the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is
recorded that (a) time and again, the petitioner is responsible for
troubling the students ; (b) not allowing them to sit in the class-room ;
(c) non-cooperative attitude with the School administration ; (d) not
2/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
following the orders of the Headmaster, which amount to breach of the

discipline. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioner is
committing such acts time and again which is affecting the discipline of
the School.
4. Shri.Akshay Bramhane, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that stoppage of one annual increment with permanent
effect is a major penalty. It is submitted that such a punishment cannot
be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry as
contemplated by the provisions of Rule 8 of the MCS Rules which
prescribes procedure for imposing major penalty.
5. Shri.Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–Municipal
Council on the other hand supported the impugned order. In the
Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated that the petitioner was misbehaving and
unnecessarily harassing the students. It is submitted that there is no
need to conduct an inquiry if the punishment is minor in nature. It is
submitted that under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (“the
Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965”, for short), the Chief Officer
has been empowered to impose minor penalties vide proviso to Sub-
section (2) as detailed in Section 79(1), (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of
3/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
which Section 79(1)(ii) says “withholding of increments or promotion

including stoppage at an efficiency bar” .
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the memo of the
Writ Petition, relevant and the Affidavit-in-Reply.
7. From the Affidavit-in-Reply and from the submissions made on
behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondents, it is seen that the
Chief Officer is empowered to impose minor penalties under the
provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 79 of the Maharashtra
Municipalities Act, 1965. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated that
though the misconduct alleged was of serious nature, however, with a
view to give an opportunity to the petitioner, a lenient view has been
taken and accordingly, a minor punishment has been imposed. The
Chief Officer is competent to impose minor penalty under Section 79
of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.
8. Thus, it is apparent that the Chief Officer was inclined to impose
a minor punishment and according to him, the punishment imposed is
a minor one. The question is whether the penalty as imposed by the
Municipal Council can be said to be a minor penalty. The penalty
imposed is stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill
4/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
1
V/s. State of Punjab is significant in the context of the present case.

The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether stoppage
of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty? Rules 8
and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1970 were under consideration. The Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 are similar to the provisions of
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.
9. Under Rule 5 of the MCS Rules, the following penalties can be
imposed. The relevant part of the said Rule reads thus:-
“5. Penalties.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of any law
for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for
good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be
imposed on a Government servant, namely :—
Minor penalties—
(i) Censure ;
(ii) Withholding of his promotion ;
(iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused by him to Government, by negligence
or breach of orders ;
(iii-a) Reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by
one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension;
1
MANU/SC/0658/1991
5/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
(iv) Withholding of increments of pay ;

Major Penalties—
(v) save as provided for in clause (iii-a), reduction to a
lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period,
with further directions as to whether or not the Government
servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such
reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the
reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future
increments of his pay ;
(vi) Reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or
service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty,
which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government
servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay,
grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with
direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of
the said specified period,—
(a) the period of reduction to time-scale of pay, grade, post or
service shall operate to future increments of his pay, and if so,
to what extent; and,
(b) the Government servant shall regain his original seniority in
the higher time-scale of pay, grade, post or service ; ”
10. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge
over it undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule
5(iv) of the MSC Rules. Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 is pari materia with the
6/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
provisions of Rule 5 of the MSC Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

while considering Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in Kulwant
Singh Gill (supra), in paragraph No.3 has held thus:-
“3. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter
undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule
5(iv). But Sub-rule (v) postulates, reduction to a lower stage in
the time-scale of pay for a specified period with further
directions as to whether or not the Government employee
shall earn increments of pay during the period of such
reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the
reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the
future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of
penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an
appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The
impugned order of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of
Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require
conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar,
learned counsel for the State is that withholding two
increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it
does not amount to reduction to, a lower stage in the time-
scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the
contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter
without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning
of Rule 5(iv) of the rules. But when penalty was imposed
withholding two increments i.e., for two years with cumulative
7/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
effect, it would indisputably means that the two increments

earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for
ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In
other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-
scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working
from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned
order by necessary implication is that the appellant employee
is reduced in his time-scale by two places and it is in
perpetuity during the, rest of the tenure of Iris service with a
direction that two years’ increments would not be counted in
his time-scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are
the skin to the language which if pealed off its true colour or
its resultant effects would become apparent .
When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect
is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted
that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
and Ors. I.L.R.1985 (2) P&H. 193 P.C. Jain. A.C.J. speaking
for the division bench, while considering similar question, in
paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with
cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within
Clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services
Rules. It was further held that under Clause (v) of Rule 5 there
has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay
by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the
period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be
stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether
the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments
8/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments

without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where
the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect
the Government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of
time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that Clause (iv) of
Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we
are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal
interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to
arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of
the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the
conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High
Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary
authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments,
of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even
permanently with expressly stating so. This preposterous
consequences cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv)
does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty
of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect
except after holding inquiry following the prescribed
procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or
authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering
from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the
impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v)
of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the
impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal.”
[Emphasis supplied]
11. The decision in Kulwant Singh Gill is a complete answer to the
9/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
controversy involved in this petition. The only difference is the present

is a case of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, whereas
in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), it was stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect. We borrow the reasonings of Their Lordships while
holding that the penalty is a major one. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in concluding that Rule 5(iv) of the MSC Rules empowers
the Discipline Authority to impose penalty of withholding one
increment of pay with cumulative effect after holding an inquiry
following the prescribed procedure.
12. Learned counsel for the Municipal Council made an attempt to
submit that the Municipal Council is not bound by the provisions of
the MSC Rules as the punishment is prescribed under the provisions of
Section 79 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. Section 79
reads thus:-
“79. Punishment of officers and servants
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of any law for the time
being in force and subject to the provisions of Section 75A
and the rules made thereunder, the following penalties may,
for good reasons, be imposed upon any officer or servant of
the Council:—
(i) Censure;
(ii) Withholding of increments or promotion including
10/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(iii) Reduction to a lower post on a fixed pay or a time-
scale or to a lower stage in time-scale;
(iv) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Council by negligence or
breach of orders;
(v) Fine;
(vi) Suspension;
(vii) Removal from the service, which does not disqualify
from future employment;
(viii) Dismissal from the service, which ordinarily
disqualifies from future employment.
13. We find that Section 79 of the Act only provides for the
competency of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to impose
the punishment. A bare reading of the relevant provisions and the
impugned order indicate that the procedure as contemplated under the
MCS Rules has to be followed before imposing a minor or major
penalty and even the competent Authority has so understood it.
14. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that in the present
facts, the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect amounts to
a major penalty. The impugned order therefore calls for interference.
15. The competent Authority was inclined to impose a minor
penalty on the petitioner. Even learned counsel for the Council argued
11/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
that punishment imposed is a minor penalty. The competent Authority

did not find the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice
satisfactory. The penalty is imposed after considering the issuance of
the show cause notice, considering the explanation and following the
prescribed procedure by the MCS Rules. The CEO of the Municipal
Council was of the opinion that the penalty imposed is minor, but
factually on a misconception imposed a major penalty.
16. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon
setting aside the impugned order, the Petitioner is ready to face major
penalty proceedings, we are not inclined to accept this submission. The
Chief Officer has upon considering the explanation formed an
opinion that leniency should be shown in the case of the Petitioner
though the charges are serious and therefore, formed an opinion that
minor penalty should be imposed. The punishment ultimately
imposed that of stoppage of increment with permanent effect has to be
regarded as a major penalty. The petitioner is on the verge of
retirement. One year of service is left as per the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
17. In such view of the matter, though we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order, we propose to modify the penalty to
12/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::

7-WP-11632-2018.doc
withholding of increment of pay simpliciter for one year without

cumulative effect. The penalty is modified to the aforesaid extent. The
penalty shall not operate as a stigma against the petitioner.
18. The petition is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
13/13
Satish Sangar
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 19:49:37 :::