Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ananta Vishwanath Dhotre and Nitin Wamanrao Shinde, were appointed as Assistant Professor and Assistant Manager respectively at the College of Dairy Technology, Warood, under the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur. They were on probation. The respondent University passed resolutions No.32 and 33 of 2016 terminating their services without issuing any show cause notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners challenged these resolutions by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The main legal issue was whether the termination of probationary employees without a show cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that the termination was punitive and stigmatic, and thus required a prior hearing. The respondent contended that probationers have no right to the post and can be terminated without notice. The court, after hearing both sides, held that even a probationer is entitled to a show cause notice if the termination is based on unsatisfactory performance or is stigmatic. Since the termination was without any prior warning or inquiry, it was in violation of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned resolutions and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice V.K. Jadhav on 13 July 2016.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Natural Justice - Principles of Audi Alteram Partem - Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act - Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professor and Assistant Manager on probation. Their services were terminated by resolutions No.32 and 33 of 2016 without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The court held that even a probationer is entitled to a show cause notice before termination if the termination is punitive or stigmatic. Since the termination was based on alleged unsatisfactory performance without any prior warning or inquiry, it was violative of natural justice. The impugned resolutions were quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - High Court can quash administrative orders passed in violation of natural justice. The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the resolutions. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioners, who were probationary employees, without issuance of a show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The impugned resolutions No.32 and 33 of 2016 are quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Termination of Probationer
- Show Cause Notice
- Writ of Certiorari
