Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aakash s/o Ravindra Devke, was appointed as a clerk on a temporary basis on probation for three years by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) on 28 May 2012, under the reserved category for Nomadic Tribe (NT). The appointment was subject to the petitioner obtaining a validity certificate for his caste claim from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, prior to his appointment, on 30 April 2012, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had rejected his caste claim. The petitioner accepted the appointment without disclosing this rejection. The Corporation terminated his services on 10 April 2014 on the ground of suppression of material fact. The petitioner's representation for reinstatement was rejected on 30 January 2016. The petitioner challenged both the termination order and the rejection of his representation by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the petitioner had explained that he was unaware of the rejection order as it was received by his illiterate mother at his hometown Akola, who did not understand its contents. The court observed that the termination was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the termination was arbitrary and set aside both the termination order and the communication rejecting the representation. The court directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages, and to consider his case for regularization in accordance with law. The court also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse action is taken.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Employee - Suppression of Material Fact - The petitioner, appointed as a clerk on temporary basis on probation, failed to disclose that his caste claim was rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee prior to his appointment. The court held that the termination order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice. The court set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages, considering the petitioner's explanation that his illiterate mother received the rejection order and he was unaware of it. (Paras 1-11) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the termination order and the communication rejecting the petitioner's representation, as the termination was arbitrary and without hearing. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's temporary appointment as a clerk on the ground of suppression of the rejection of his caste claim by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was justified, and whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before termination.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination order dated 10 April 2014 and the communication dated 30 January 2016, and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. The court further directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse action is taken, and that his case for regularization be considered in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Termination of temporary employee
- Suppression of material fact
- Caste validity
- Opportunity of hearing
