Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Manik Abaso Jadhav, was appointed as a Food Inspector with the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the designation of Food Inspector was changed to Food Safety Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 09/01/2014 imposing a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court challenging the order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before imposing the penalty. The court heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, and the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. A. K. Jalisatgi. The court noted that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court held that even if the penalty is a minor penalty, if it is a penalty, the principles of natural justice require that the employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court relied on the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Minor Penalty - Opportunity of Hearing - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Withholding of increment without cumulative effect is a penalty - The petitioner, a Food Inspector, was imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect without being given an opportunity of hearing - The court held that even for a minor penalty, if it is a penalty, the principles of natural justice require that the employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard - The impugned order was quashed and set aside (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the imposition of a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 09/01/2014, and directed the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
- reasonable opportunity of hearing
- minor penalty
- withholding of increment without cumulative effect
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- 2006
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
