Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tulshiram s/o Kisan Tayade, was initially appointed as a clerk in Gram Panchayat, Bodwad on 29.10.2004. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat was transformed into a Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The petitioner became an employee of the Municipal Council and took initiative for the rights of employees transferred from the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. As a representative of the association, he met the Chief Officer (respondent No.3) to discuss demands. Allegedly, the Chief Officer insulted and abused him on caste lines, leading the petitioner to lodge an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 12.07.2017. In retaliation, the Chief Officer alleged that the petitioner abused, threatened, and assaulted him during the meeting on 13.07.2017, suspended him, and initiated a disciplinary inquiry. A show cause notice was served, and the petitioner replied. The inquiry was conducted by the Chief Officer of Municipal Council Savada, who found the petitioner guilty. Based on the inquiry report, the District Collector (respondent No.2) terminated the petitioner's services on 25.10.2017 under Section 79(1) read with Section 8 of the Act and Rule 5(8) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979. The petitioner's appeal under Section 79(6) of the Act was dismissed by the Director of Municipal Administration on 29.09.2018. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the inquiry was vitiated due to bias, as the inquiry officer was a subordinate of the complainant Chief Officer, and the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself. The termination order and the appellate order were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. The court also directed that if the respondents wish to proceed afresh, they may do so in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Disciplinary Inquiry - Bias - The termination of a clerk by the Collector under Section 79(1) read with Section 8 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 was set aside as the inquiry officer was biased, being a subordinate of the complainant Chief Officer, and the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself. Held that the inquiry was vitiated due to bias and violation of natural justice (Paras 5-10). B) Service Law - Appeal - Dismissal of Appeal - The appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal under Section 79(6) of the Act was also quashed as it did not consider the procedural irregularities and bias in the inquiry. Held that the appellate order was unsustainable (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was valid and in accordance with law, and whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted fairly and without bias.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The termination order dated 25.10.2017 and the appellate order dated 29.09.2018 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. The respondents were given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law if they so desired.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Bias
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Termination
- Opportunity of hearing
- Section 79 Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act
- 1965
- Rule 5(8) Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979
