Case Note & Summary
The case involves a service dispute between Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and its employee, Jayant Sarvottamrao Kharwadkar. The first respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in 1985 and later transferred to the Planning Department. He was promoted to Town Planner in 1998 and confirmed in 1999. In 2002, the Municipal Commissioner reverted him to Sectional Engineer, purportedly in compliance with a High Court order in an unrelated writ petition. The High Court initially dismissed his challenge but later allowed a review and set aside the reversion. The Supreme Court held that the reversion order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order does not bar a review petition. The Supreme Court quashed the reversion order and restored the first respondent to the post of Town Planner with consequential benefits, without delving into other issues.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reversion - Natural Justice - Reversion of an employee without affording an opportunity of hearing is manifestly contrary to law - The Municipal Commissioner's order dated 28 August 2002 reverting the first respondent from the post of Town Planner was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 16-17).
B) Civil Procedure - Review - Maintainability - Dismissal of Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order does not foreclose the avenue of a review petition - Since leave was not granted and no reasons were expressed, a review petition was maintainable (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of the first respondent from the post of Town Planner without affording an opportunity of hearing was valid; Whether a review petition was maintainable after dismissal of Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order dated 28 August 2002 passed by the Municipal Commissioner reverting the first respondent, on the ground that it was passed in manifest violation of principles of natural justice. The Court restored the first respondent to the post of Town Planner with all consequential benefits. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Reversion without hearing is illegal
- Maintainability of review after dismissal of SLP by non-speaking order
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (11) 15
Civil Appeal No. 8908-8910 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12636-12638 of 2015)
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner
Jayant S/o Sarvottamrao Kharwadkar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service dispute regarding reversion of an employee from the post of Town Planner to Sectional Engineer.
Remedy Sought
The first respondent sought quashing of the reversion order dated 28 August 2002 and restoration to the post of Town Planner.
Filing Reason
The Municipal Commissioner reverted the first respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing, allegedly in compliance with a High Court order in an unrelated matter.
Previous Decisions
The High Court initially dismissed the writ petition on 29 September 2003; a Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 October 2003; the High Court allowed a review on 20 October 2012 and then allowed the writ petition on 12 June 2014; a review by the appellant was dismissed on 13 February 2015.
Issues
Whether the reversion order dated 28 August 2002 was valid when passed without affording an opportunity of hearing?
Whether a review petition was maintainable after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Municipal Corporation): The reversion was in compliance with the High Court order in Writ Petition No.2156/1988; the review was not maintainable after dismissal of SLP.
Respondent: The reversion was without hearing; the SLP dismissal was non-speaking and did not bar review; the appointment in Town Planning Department was never challenged.
Ratio Decidendi
An order of reversion of an employee without affording an opportunity of hearing is manifestly contrary to law and must be set aside. Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order does not bar a review petition.
Judgment Excerpts
Reversion of an employee is a matter of substantive prejudice. Hence there can be no gainsaying the fact that an opportunity of being heard is required to be afforded before an order or reversion is passed.
The order dated 28 August 2002 ought to have been set aside on that ground alone.
Procedural History
The first respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1985, transferred to Planning Department in 1988, promoted to Town Planner in 1998, confirmed in 1999. In 2002, the Municipal Commissioner reverted him to Sectional Engineer. He filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 29 September 2003. A Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 17 October 2003. A review petition was allowed by the High Court on 20 October 2012, and the writ petition was allowed on 12 June 2014. The appellant's review was dismissed on 13 February 2015. The Supreme Court heard the appeals and quashed the reversion order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: Section 455(i)
