Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade, was an employee of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank. He was removed from service by an order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, which was dismissed by an order dated 29.11.2010. The petitioner challenged the appellate order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner contended that the appellate order was without any reasons and that he was not given a personal hearing by the Board before passing the order. The respondents argued that the Board had discussed the matter in detail and the minutes of the meeting would show that all facets were considered. The court examined the impugned order and found that it was a cryptic order without any reasons. The court also noted that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing by the appellate authority. Relying on the decision in Anil Amrut Atre vs. District & Sessions Judge, 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 750, the court held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order and must grant a personal hearing to the appellant. The court quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the Board of Directors for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Appellate Order - Reasoned Order - The appellate authority must pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind; a cryptic or unreasoned order is unsustainable in law. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Personal Hearing - Natural Justice - The appellate authority is required to grant a personal hearing to the delinquent employee before confirming the punishment; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - The order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority without reasons and without hearing was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Board of Directors (Appellate Authority) confirming the punishment of removal from service is sustainable in law when it is without reasons and without granting personal hearing to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Board of Directors is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Directors for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Appellate authority must pass reasoned order
- Personal hearing mandatory in disciplinary appeals
- Non-application of mind vitiates appellate order
