Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21/22.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10682 of 1998. 2. The facts in brief are that while the respondent herein was discharging his duty as Civil Engineer with the appellant-Corporation, it was alleged that he had committed certain irregularities in relation to certain works of construction of roads prepared within the Municipal limits. Charge-sheet was issued and ultimately, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent. At the end of the proceedings, the appellant-Corporation dismissed the respondent from service by order dated 07.12.1998. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred the captioned writ petition, which came to be allowed by order dated 21/22.03.2006. 3. Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.R. Nanavaty appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and Mr. N.S. Kariel appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is contented on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating the provisions of The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 [for short, “the said Act”] inasmuch as the said Act authorizes the appointing as well as disciplinary authority to impose major punishment of removal from service. It is submitted that the allegation of misconduct levelled against the respondent was proved beyond doubt and therefore, under the provisions of the said Act, the authority was empowered to passed the order of dismissal against the respondent. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs. Sunil, S/o. Pundikarao Pathak, (2006) 5 SCC 96 more particularly Para 7, which reads as under:— “7. The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently “rectified” by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato qequiparatur, namely, “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.” Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated.” 4. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato qequiparatur, namely, “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.” Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated.” 4. The learned Single Judge considered the relevant provisions of the said Act and came to the conclusion that the appointing as well as disciplinary authority for imposition of major punishment or removal from service for an incumbent holding the post of City Engineer is the appellant-Corporation. We completely agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge since the Municipal Commissioner does not have any authority to pass an order of dismissal against the respondent. 5. Under the Resolution dated 20.11.1998, the Commissioner is authorized to initiate steps to take appropriate action against an Office of the Corporation who is found to have committed either irregularities or acted with negligence with respect to purchases. There is no mention of permitting the Commissioner to initiate and take action against officers for irregularities or negligence in implementation of different works. Admittedly, the alleged irregularities pertained to execution of certain works and not with respect to purchases. Hence, the Commissioner is not empowered to pass an order of dismissal against the petitioner. Therefore, the subsequent ratification of the action of the Commissioner would not save the action, which was void ab initio. The principle laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is correct but, it will not apply to this case since the action of the Commissioner of dismissing the petitioner from service itself is void ab inito, which cannot be subsequently ratified. 6. In view of the above, we find no merits in the present appeal and hence, the appeal fails. It is, accordingly, rejected. It is however, observed that the amount deposited by the Corporation pursuant to the order of this Court, the same shall be paid to the respondent. Order In Letters Patent Appeal No. 752 of 2006 In view of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 726 of 2006, Mr. Kariel, learned Counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of as not pressed. P P P P P