Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aniruddha Nagorao Chinchkhedkar, an employee of Zilla Parishad, Jalna, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: one dated 12.09.2002 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna (respondent No.2) and another dated 09.12.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division (respondent No.1), both imposing penalty upon him under Rule 4(iv) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The respondents argued that the penalty was imposed after following due procedure. The court examined the records and found that the disciplinary authority had not conducted a proper inquiry as required under the rules. The court noted that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense. Consequently, the court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law and quashed them. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Penalty under Rule 4(iv) - The petitioner, an employee of Zilla Parishad, was imposed penalty by the Chief Executive Officer and the Additional Commissioner under Rule 4(iv) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - The court found that the disciplinary authority did not conduct a proper inquiry and the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself - Held that the orders imposing penalty were unsustainable and liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 4(iv) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 was valid and in accordance with law, and whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 12.09.2002 and 09.12.2003 imposing penalty upon the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Rule 4(iv) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- 1964
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 8
Writ Petition No. 369 of 2004
R.D. Dhanuka, Sunil K. Kotwal
Mr. D.R. Irale Patil for petitioner; Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1; Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni for respondent No.2
Aniruddha Nagorao Chinchkhedkar
1. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad; 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging orders imposing penalty under Rule 4(iv) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of orders dated 12.09.2002 and 09.12.2003 imposing penalty upon the petitioner.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that penalty was imposed without proper inquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Issues
Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 4(iv) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 was valid and in accordance with law.
Whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and no proper inquiry was held.
Respondents argued that penalty was imposed after following due procedure as per rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The disciplinary authority failed to conduct a proper inquiry as required under Rule 4(iv) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing, rendering the penalty orders unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 12.09.2002 passed by the respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna and the order dated 09.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.1 Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad imposing penalty upon the petitioner under Rule 4 (iv) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 369 of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging two orders imposing penalty. The petition was reserved on 26.09.2017 and pronounced on 13.10.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964: Rule 4(iv)
