Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bharatkumar Keshavlal Solanki, an advocate, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay all pay and allowances due during the period of termination from 17.3.2006 to 1.12.2009 and to release two increments. The court heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, AGP for the State, and Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent No. 2. The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted ex-parte without proper notice and the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent-Corporation to pay all pay and allowances due to the petitioner for the period of termination and to release two increments.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Adequate Opportunity of Hearing - The petitioner challenged termination order passed by Disciplinary Authority and appellate order - Court held that the inquiry was conducted ex-parte without proper notice and the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself - Held that the orders are quashed and set aside (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash orders passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority - Held that the orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary order dated 4.5.2013 terminating the petitioner's services and the appellate order dated 14.12.2015 are vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of adequate opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent-Corporation was directed to pay all pay and allowances due to the petitioner for the period from 17.3.2006 to 1.12.2009 and to release two increments.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Adequate Opportunity of Hearing
- Ex-Parte Inquiry
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Service Law
- Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
