Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Officer/Branch Manager of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, challenged an appellate decision of the Board of Directors communicated by letter dated 10 November 2005, arising from a disciplinary inquiry where he had admitted 21 charges. The disciplinary authority had on 25 May 2004 reduced his pay to the initial stage of Rs.7100 in the time scale of Rs.7100-12540. On appeal under Regulation 47 of the Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001, the Board modified the punishment to reduce pay to Rs.8460, but the petitioner was neither given personal hearing nor supplied a reasoned order. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging violation of natural justice. The respondent bank contended that Regulation 47 does not mandate personal hearing or supply of order and that the petitioner had admitted the charges. The court, relying on the Full Bench judgment in Anil Amrut Atre v. District and Sessions Judge, held that the expression 'consider' in Regulation 47 imposes an obligation to apply mind, grant personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The court observed that any order with civil consequences affecting rights must comply with natural justice, which includes personal hearing and a reasoned decision. The mere communication of the Board's decision without a reasoned order was insufficient and caused prejudice to the petitioner, who could not challenge the order on merits. The impugned order was set aside as arbitrary and perverse, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh decision after granting personal hearing and passing a reasoned order, with a direction to supply a copy to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Natural Justice - Right to Personal Hearing and Reasoned Order - Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001, Regulation 47 - The appellate authority must consider the appeal by applying mind, granting personal hearing, and passing a reasoned order; the expression 'consider' is not an empty formality - Held that failure to grant personal hearing and to record reasons violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order arbitrary and liable to be set aside (Paras 15-19)
B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Supply of Appellate Order - Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001, Regulation 47 - The appellate authority is obliged to furnish a copy of its reasoned order to the delinquent employee; mere communication of the decision is insufficient - Held that non-supply of the order prejudiced the petitioner's right to challenge on merits and violated natural justice (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-grant of personal hearing and non-supply of reasoned order by the appellate authority under Regulation 47 of the Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001 violates principles of natural justice and renders the order arbitrary.
Final Decision
The court set aside the impugned order dated 18 October 2005 as communicated by letter dated 10 November 2005, being in violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrary. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order, supplying a copy of the order to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice require personal hearing and reasoned order
- expression 'consider' in appeal provision includes application of mind
- personal hearing
- and recording of reasons
- appellate authority must supply reasoned order to affected party
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 4
Writ Petition No. 2764 of 2006
R.D. Dhanuka, Sunil K. Kotwal
D.R. Bhadekar, M.M. Patil, V.M. Kagne
Raghunath s/o Tejerao Kothalkar
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against appellate authority's decision in a departmental inquiry.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18 October 2005 passed by the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 bank, arising out of the disciplinary authority's order dated 25 May 2004 which reduced his pay.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's appeal under Regulation 47 was decided by the Board of Directors without granting him personal hearing and without providing a copy of the reasoned order, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary authority passed order on 25 May 2004 reducing petitioner's pay to the initial stage of Rs.7100 in the time scale of Rs.7100-12540. On appeal, the Board of Directors decided on 18 October 2005, communicated by letter dated 10 November 2005, to modify the punishment by reducing pay to Rs.8460 instead of Rs.7100, effective from 18 October 2005.
Issues
Whether non-grant of personal hearing and non-supply of reasoned order by the appellate authority under Regulation 47 of the Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001 violates principles of natural justice and renders the order arbitrary.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to give personal hearing and did not supply a copy of the reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. Relied on the Full Bench judgment in Anil Amrut Atre v. District and Sessions Judge, which held that the expression 'consider' in similar service rules includes the duty to grant personal hearing and record reasons.
Respondent contended that Regulation 47 does not mandate personal hearing or supply of the order; that the petitioner never applied for personal hearing; and that the petitioner had admitted all charges before the Enquiry Officer.
Ratio Decidendi
The expression 'consider' in Regulation 47 of the Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001 obligates the appellate authority to apply its mind, grant personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and renders the order arbitrary. The appellate authority must also furnish a copy of the reasoned order to the affected employee.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellate authority was bound to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and ought to have supplied the decision to the petitioner who was a party to the appeal provided under Regulation 47 of the Regulations, 2001.
In our view, the expression 'consider' in a provision for appeal or providing any other legal remedy to a party cannot be an empty formality.
Petitioner has demonstrated that a prejudice is caused to him due to deprivation of personal hearing and by not furnishing the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.
Procedural History
The petitioner, an Officer/Branch Manager of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, was subjected to departmental enquiry on 3 June 2003 on 21 charges. He admitted the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted report on 30 January 2004. On 25 May 2004, the disciplinary authority (Chairman) imposed punishment of reduction of pay to Rs.7100 in the time scale of Rs.7100-12540. The petitioner appealed under Regulation 47. The Board of Directors considered the appeal on 18 October 2005 and modified the punishment to reduce pay to Rs.8460, but did not grant personal hearing. The decision was communicated by letter dated 10 November 2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2764 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 11 August 2017, setting aside the appellate order and remanding the case.
Acts & Sections
- Marathwada Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations 2001: Regulation 47
- Constitution of India: Article 226
