BOMBAY HIGH COURT
(Aurangabad Bench)(DB)
Before:- Ravindra V. Ghuge and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ.
Writ Petition No. 1008 of 2023.
Dt.21.03.2023
21.03.202.
Dr.Anil – Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondents
6. It is well settled that if salary of an employee is to be reduced/ halted or some deductions are to be carried out, the principles of natural justice have to be complied with. Merely because the employer believes that the employee has certain deficiencies, would not empower the employer to straightaway proceed to pass an order without even granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. This amounts to alteration in service conditions, which is impermissible without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner is deprived of his salary for the months of November, 2022 payable in December, 2022 and onwards, only because Respondent No.2 believes that he was not qualified in 2012.
7. Waking up after more than ten years and issuing an adverse order without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as atrocious as halting the payment of monthly salary of a person who, by now has acquired Ph.D., is unsustainable. Apparently, Respondent No.2 has passed the order, highhandedly. The University has followed the appropriate course of issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioner. Needless to state, the University would follow the due procedure laid down in law and take the issue to it’s logical conclusion.
8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 is quashed and set aside.
9. Considering our first order dated 30.01.2023, the salary for the months of November-2022, December-2022, January-2023 and February-2023 have been deposited in this Court. The same would be withdrawn by the Petitioner through proper identification by the learned Advocate and by placing a copy of the Adhaar Card and the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, on record.
10. Salary of the Petitioner would be continued to be paid until any action is initiated by following the due procedure laid down in law, by a competant authority. Needless to state, this would be without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner, who would be at liberty to avail of the legal remedies for redressal of his grievance.
11. Considering the above, we deem it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on Respondent No.2, which shall be deposited in this Court within 15 days from today, from his salary account. The said amount shall be withdrawn by the Petitioner as costs.
12. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
Views: 2
Leave a Reply