Jayashree Sunil Rajbhoj And Ors vs. The Commissioner Cum Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
Multiple writ petitions were filed by various petitioners challenging the recall/cancellation of their absorption/appointment orders by the Nashik Municipal Corporation. The inquiry into these appointments was initiated two years prior, following a complaint by an MLA and MLC regarding alleged irregularities in the reservation roster. An affidavit-in-reply by the Additional Commissioner highlighted complaints against the Administrative Officer for misuse of powers and revealed a surplus of 24 teachers based on a roster verification for 2022-23. The inquiry suggested that the petitioners' absorption was accommodated despite the surplus and that their proposals were one-sided transfers not properly placed before higher authorities. Crucially, the petitioners were not issued any notice or given an opportunity to be heard before their orders were recalled and they were repatriated.
Held
The Court held that the unilateral recall/cancellation of the petitioners' absorption/appointment orders without providing them an opportunity of hearing was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that any adverse order causing prejudice to an individual cannot be passed without giving that person a chance to be heard. Therefore, the Court found it necessary to entertain the petitions solely to facilitate an opportunity of hearing for all petitioners. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 14th/15th May, 2025, to the extent they affected the petitioners. The Competent Authority of the Corporation was directed to issue show-cause notices to each petitioner, along with a copy of the inquiry report, granting them 21 days to submit their written explanations. The Court also directed that the petitioners would stand re-instated in the interim and would be entitled to their salaries. If an adverse order was passed subsequently, it would not be implemented for 15 days to allow petitioners to avail further remedies.
Key Issues
1. Whether the absorption/appointment orders of the Petitioners could be unilaterally recalled/cancelled without providing them an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the recall of their absorption/appointment orders, which caused prejudice to them, was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. They argued that this violated the fundamental principles of natural justice, which mandate that no adverse order can be passed against a person without hearing them. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent, Nashik Municipal Corporation, through its learned advocate, submitted that while the affidavit-in-reply did not explicitly mention notices being issued, the record indicated that neither notice was issued to the petitioners nor were they called upon to address the Inquiry Committee. The Corporation did not present any argument against the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9724 OF 2025 Patel Seerat Hamjekhan And Ors .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner CGST And CX Navi Mumbai Commissionerate .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7229 OF 2025 Sharda Hiralal Bhamare .. Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary Department Of Education And Sports And Ors .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7240 OF 2025 Nirmala Kiran Diwate Alias Nirmala S. Thanage And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner/ Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Ors .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7243 OF 2025 Satvashila Damodhar Patil And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner/ Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Ors ...Respondents Mane 1/7 JYOTI RAJESH MANE MANE Date: 2025.07.18 12:14:10 +0530
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7251 OF 2025 Jayashree Sunil Rajbhoj And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner Cum Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Anr ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7247 OF 2025 Dipali Ramchandra Ogalmogle And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner/ Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Ors ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7249 OF 2025 Yogita Sahebrao Ahire ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner/ Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7245 OF 2025 Mahesh Vana Patil ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner/ Administrator Nashik Municipal Corporation And Ors ...Respondents Mr. Suresh Pakale a/w Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai, for the Petitioner in all WPs except WP/7229/2025. Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w. Ms. Suchita J. Pawar a/w. Mr. Arman Ansari, Mane 2/7
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt for the Petitioner in WP/7229/25. Mr. Subhash V. Gutte, for the Respondent- Nashik Municipal Corporation in all matters.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE: 15th JULY, 2025 P. C.
Leave to add the co-Petitioner in W.P. No. 7251/2025, subject to payment of Court fees. The said addition be carried out forthwith.
In all these matters, though we have considered the submissions of learned Advocates for quite some time, it is an admitted position that the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation commenced the inquiry into the absorption/appointment Orders issued to these Petitioners, two years ago, in view of a complaint filed by the MLA Smt. Saroj Ahire and MLC Shri. Kishor Darade. It was contended by this peoples representatives that the reservation roaster (Bindu Namavali) was not properly cited before the highest authority by the Administrative Officer of the Corporation’s Education Department at Nasik. Hence, the Commissioner formed a committee comprising of 4 Officers of the Municipal Corporation. Mane 3/7
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt
In the affidavit-in-reply dated 30th June, 2025, the Additional Commissioner-I has stated that there were several complaints against the Administrative Officer due to the misuse of his administrative powers. The local MLA and MLC filed complaints against him and LAQ No.421, came to be raised on 6th March, 2025 in the Maharashtra Legislative Council. It is further mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that as per the roaster verification made by the said authority on 24th August, 2023 in respect of the Sanch Manyata (staffing pattern) of the year 2022-23, the following picture emerged:
Marathi – Sanction Posts 678 Filled Post 702 Vacant Post 0 Surplus post 24
The inquiry indicated that there were 24 surplus Teachers and absorption of the Petitioners could not be accommodated. All proposals of the respective Teachers were a result of a one sided transfer which were not placed before the Additional Commissioner of the Corporation. They were placed directly before the Commissioner, who granted N.O.C. for transfer. Mane 4/7
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt
We find from the said affidavit-in-reply that the Additional Commissioner has dealt with several issues, primarily with regard to the irregularities committed in granting N.O.C. for absorption in the Corporation purportedly in the backdrop of adequate posts not being available. However, though not stated in the affidavit-in-reply, the learned Advocate for the Corporation submits on the basis of the record that neither was a notice issued to any of these Petitioners, nor were they called upon to address the Inquiry Committee in the inquiry conducted by the said Committee.
In the light of the above, the record reveals that none of these Petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing before there absorption/appointment Orders were unilaterally recalled/cancelled and they were repatriated to their original positions. It does not call for any debate that an adverse order, which causes prejudice to any person, cannot be passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
In view of the above discussed solitary ground, we are bound to entertain this Petition only with an object of facilitating an opportunity of hearing to all these Petitioners, by issuing a direction to the Corporation to issue Show Cause Notices to these Petitioners calling upon them to explain Mane 5/7
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt their position. The copy of the Inquiry Report would also be supplied to these Petitioners.
As such, these Petitions are partly allowed for the reason set out herein above. Individual impugned Orders dated 14th /15th May, 2025 which are identical, are quashed and set aside to the extent of these Petitioners. The Competent Authority of the Corporation would issue a notice of hearing to each of these Petitioners along with the copy of the Inquiry Report, by granting them 21 days time to submit there written explanation. These Petitioners would submit their written explanation within the timeline, failing which, the Corporation would be at liberty to initiate appropriate action. The competent authority would scrutinize each case in the light of the Show Cause Notice and the explanation tendered, coupled with the inquiry report and thereafter pass a reasoned order. If any of the Petitioners are aggrieved by the order, they would be at liberty to avail of a remedy as is permissible in law.
Needless to state, that in the light of this order, the Petitioners would stand re-instated in the interregnum. If there is no work available or duties to be allotted to any of them, they would be still entitled to their salaries,
considering the above directions issued. Mane 6/7
912 & 46 - WP 9724-25 & Ors..odt
In the event, an adverse order is passed against any of these Petitioners, we direct that the Order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days to enable the Petitioners to avail of a remedy. However, the issue of Salary for the said period of 15 days would be a subject matter of the proceedings that they may initiate. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] Mane 7/7
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.