Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Chalisgaon, constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik, which set aside the termination of respondent No.4, Jagdish Raghunath Londhe, who was appointed as Secretary of the APMC on 2nd January 2016. Respondent No.4 was found to have committed misconduct, including non-renewal of weight scales, illegal recovery of fines, unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.1,12,368/- towards pay scale difference, and deficiencies in audit reports for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. A show cause notice was issued on 31st March 2018, and after an unsatisfactory reply, he was suspended on 16th April 2018. A charge-sheet with twelve charges was served on 27th April 2018, and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the APMC terminated his services on 30th June 2018. Respondent No.4 challenged the termination before the Joint Registrar, who set aside the termination on the ground that the APMC had no jurisdiction to terminate without prior approval under Section 33 of the Act. The APMC then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 33, which requires prior approval of the Director for creation of 'offices' but not for 'posts'. The Court held that the Secretary holds a 'post' and not an 'office', and therefore, no prior approval was required for his termination. The Court also found that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, and the termination was based on proved misconduct. The Court further held that the APMC is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and the remedy for the respondent lies before the civil court or under the Act, not by way of a writ petition. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Joint Registrar, and upheld the termination of respondent No.4.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Secretary of APMC - Jurisdiction of High Court - The petitioner, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, terminated the services of its Secretary after a departmental enquiry. The respondent challenged the termination before the High Court under Article 226. The Court held that the termination was not illegal and the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the APMC as the petitioner is not a 'State' under Article 12 and the remedy lies before the civil court or under the Act. (Paras 1-10) B) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 33 - 'Office' vs 'Post' - The Court interpreted Section 33 of the Act, which requires prior approval of the Director for creation of 'offices' but not for 'posts'. The Court held that the Secretary holds a 'post' and not an 'office', and therefore, no prior approval was required for his termination. (Paras 11-15) C) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Natural Justice - The Court examined the enquiry proceedings and found that the respondent was given a fair opportunity to defend himself, including a personal hearing. The charges were proved, and the termination was based on the enquiry report. No violation of natural justice was found. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of respondent No.4 by the petitioner APMC was illegal and without jurisdiction, and whether the High Court can interfere with the termination order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Joint Registrar dated 30th June 2018, and upheld the termination of respondent No.4 by the petitioner APMC.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226
- Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters
- Applicability of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963 to service matters
- Distinction between 'office' and 'post' under Section 33 of the Act
- Requirement of prior approval under Section 33 for termination of Secretary
