Whether minor penalty imposed on government servant can be quashed if show cause notice issued to him was vague?

We find that the Petition deserves to be allowed on two grounds. Firstly, perusal of the show cause notice would reveal that allegations made against the Petitioner in the show cause notice are totally vague in nature. It is settled law that if the allegations in the show cause notice are vague, it would not be possible for delinquent to effectively submit his reply and therefore the same would violate the principles of natural justice. Secondly, Petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned order does not give any reasons.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2014

Decided On: 16.01.2019

Manik Abaso Jadhav  Vs. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and N.J. Jamadar, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 693

Print Page

Whether government should recover damage rent from employee for overstaying in government quarter without issuing show cause notice?

The CAT has referred to the decision of this Court in K.B. Yadav vs. Union of India (W.P. No. 1885 of 2003 decided on 19.9.2003), in which, it is held that the action of recovery of damage rents without issuance of Show Cause Notice or compliance with principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside. To the same effect are the observations made by this court in case of Shri. N.C. Sharma vs. Union of India - MANU/MH/0301/2004 : 2004 (1) ATJ 481, where again it was held that the principles of natural justice have to be adhered and an opportunity will have to be given to the concerned employee before the recovery or adjustment are effected on the ground of any alleged unauthorised occupation of the Railway quarters. Since, the view taken by the CAT is in consonance with the ruling of the Division Benches of this Court, there is no good ground made out to interfere.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3327 of 2006

Decided On: 30.08.2018

 Union of India Vs. Sayed Naimuddin

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and M.S. Sonak, JJ.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 653

Print Page

When court will quash show cause notice against assessee on ground of delay?

In this court's view, therefore, since Vodafone Essar (supra) considered the entire issue and noted that even recently a reasonable period was read into the Act, in relation to exercise of powers (although in a different context) accepting the petitioner's contention in the present case is based on precedent. Furthermore, the only reason cited by the respondent, i.e. administrative convenience, cannot outweigh the harsh nature of the consequence, which would expose resident payers to the onerous responsibility of maintaining books and documents for an uncertain period of time. Given these considerations, the impugned notices are quashed. 
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ.)

Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Anr

v.

UOI and Anr

W.P. (C) 2166/2012

Decided on December 19, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6338

Print Page

Whether an employee can be dismissed from service on ground that offence is registered against him?

In the present case after a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and his reply was received, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution resolving to dismiss the petitioner from services. There was no reasonable opportunity granted to the petitioner to justify his defence before dismissing him from service. There was no opportunity to putforth his explanation before said action was taken. Though provisions of Section 61(1) empower the Gram Panchayat to dismiss any servant, said power cannot be exercised in a manner that gives a go bye to the principles of natural justice. There is no power with the Gram Panchayat to dismiss a servant merely on the ground that an offence has been registered against him. Mere registration of an offence in these facts by itself cannot be treated as a reason for dispensing with holding of an enquiry whatsoever especially when the services of a servant were sought to be dismissed. In State of UP and another Vs. Ram Vinayak (2010) 15 SCC 305, an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department was appointed on ad hoc basis and his services were subsequently regularized. Thereafter an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against him. The State Government terminated his services on the ground that same were not required. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the termination of services was sought to be justified on the ground that he was found unsuitable in view of a criminal case being registered against him. It was held that same was not termination simplicitor and in absence of any opportunity of being heard, the order of termination was in violation of principles of natural justice. Said order was accordingly set aside.

Bombay High Court

Ashok Govindrao Sardar (Water ... vs The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. ... on 29 January, 2016

Bench: A.S. Chandurkar

WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2015

Citation:2016(2) ALLMR 413

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable against order of issue of show cause notice for breach of injunction?

The petitioners had filed a Civil Suit praying for an
injunction against the respondents. On 24 October 2009, an
order was passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division,
granting injunction in favour of the petitioners. This order
was confirmed by the District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal. It is
the case of the petitioners that thereafter the respondent
obstructed the suit pathway. The petitioners accordingly filed
an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and 11 of Civil
Procedure Code. The learned Civil Judge heard both sides in
the application and by detailed order came to the conclusion
that the respondent has obstructed the suit pathway and,
accordingly, issued show cause notice to the respondent under
Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, 
the respondent filed a Misc. Civil Appeal. In this Civil Appeal,
the learned District Judge stayed the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge dated 21 February 2013. The petitioners
took an objection to the maintainability of the appeal which
the learned District Judge which was negatived by the
impugned order.
 The learned Civil Judge by order dated 21 February 2013
had issued a show cause notice to the respondents under Order
XXXIX Rule 11. There is no final order passed by the learned
Civil Judge. Neither Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code
nor Order XXXXIII Rule 1 contemplate any Misc. Appeal from
issuance of show cause notice under Order XXXIX Rule 11.
The final order is yet to be passed by the learned Civil Judge.
In the circumstances, an appeal to the District Court was
clearly not maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2014

Shri Gajanan Bala Gawas,V Me. Sagun Narayan Morjkar,

Coram:- N. M. JAMDAR, J.
Date:- 18 February 2015
Citation: 2016(2) ALLMR 277

Print Page

Whether appeal is tenable if trial court has issued show cause notice in application for temporary injunction? -

Section 94 of the CPC provides, inter alia, that in order to
prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the court may, if
it is so prescribed, inter alia, grant a temporary injunction and in
case of disobedience committ a person guilty thereof to the civil
prison and/or make such other interlocutory orders as may appear
to the court to be just and convenient. Section 94 inescapably
refers to Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the CPC which have been
set out hereinabove. (30) It may not be proper to say that the court derives its
jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction from Section 94. It is too
well established that the Court has an inherent power to pass an
order of injunction where the facts and circumstances of a case
so warrant to do complete justice between the parties. Section
151 of the CPC recognises such inherent power. Section 94 of the
CPC expressly recognises the court’s power to issue an order of
injunction and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 indicate the circumstances
in which the court may exercise its power to grant temporary
injunction. If circumstances which are not covered by Rules 1 and
2 of Order 39, warrant issuance of injunction, the court can still do
it in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
(31) In the case of Manoharlal-vs.-Seth Hiralal reported in AIR 1962
SC 527 it was held as per the majority view that it is well settled
that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple
reason that the legislature is incapable of contemplating all the
possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and
consequently for providing the procedure for them. The effect of
the expression ‘if it is so prescribed’ in Section 94 of the Code is
only this that when the Rules in Order 39 prescribe the circumstances in which temporary injunction can be issued,
ordinarily the court is not to use its inherent power to make the
necessary orders in the interest of justice, but is merely to see
whether the circumstances of the case bring it within the
prescribed rule. If the provisions of Section 94 were not there in
the Code, the Court could still issue temporary injunctions, but it
could do that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is in the
incidence of the exercise of the power of court to issue temporary
injunction that the provisions of Section 94 of the Code have their
effect and in not taking away the right of the court to exercise its
inherent power. The court has inherent jurisdiction to issue
temporary injunctions which are not covered by the provisions of
Order 39 of the Code if the court is of the opinion that the interest
of justice requires the issuance of such interim injunction.

(41) Since I have come to the conclusion that an order refusing
grant of ex parte injunction and directing issuance of notice to the
defendant is also an order passed in exercise of power under
Section 94 read with Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, it follows
that such an order is an appealable order as provided in Order 43
Rule 1 (r) of the Code. I am of the opinion that a remedial
provision in a statute, whether by way of an original proceeding or by way of an appeal should be construed in a liberal and
expansive manner rather than in a restrictive way.
(42) In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to sustain the judgment
and order whereby the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s
appeal on the ground that the order of the Ld. Trial Judge was not
an appealable order. According to the view, I have taken the Ld.
Trial Court’s order was an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
the CPC and hence appealable as provided in Order 43 Rule 1 (r)
of the Code. The further view of the appellate court that it did not
have the power to pass ad interim injunction is also erroneous in
law. Section 107 (2) of the CPC provides that the appellate court
shall have the same powers as are conferred by CPC on courts of

original jurisdiction.

In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CO 2191 of 2013

Nanda Roy & Ors. -Vs.- Gynanidhi Trust & Ors.

Coram : The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee

Judgment : 09/09/2015
Citation: AIR 2016(NOC)289 Cal

Print Page

Whether appellate court can grant injunction if trial court has issued show cause notice in application for temporary injunction?

In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to sustain the judgment
and order whereby the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s
appeal on the ground that the order of the Ld. Trial Judge was not
an appealable order. According to the view, I have taken the Ld.
Trial Court’s order was an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
the CPC and hence appealable as provided in Order 43 Rule 1 (r)
of the Code. The further view of the appellate court that it did not
have the power to pass ad interim injunction is also erroneous in
law. Section 107 (2) of the CPC provides that the appellate court
shall have the same powers as are conferred by CPC on courts of
original jurisdiction.
In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CO 2191 of 2013
Nanda Roy Vs Gynanidhi Trust & Ors.
Coram :  Justice Arijit Banerjee

Judgment : 09/09/2015
Citation: AIR 2016(NOC)289 Cal

Print Page

Whether District Judge can grant stay to show cause notice issued by civil judge under O 39 R 11 of CPC?

 Mr. S.R. Rivankar submitted that in the present case the
conclusion is already reached by the learned Civil Judge and
issuance of show cause notice is mere formality. Though there
may be some substance in the contention of Mr. Rivankar that
the learned Civil Judge has come to a final conclusion but,
there is no final order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 11.
6. The learned District Judge has erred in entertaining the
appeal and granting stay to the proceedings before the Civil
Judge. It is also not clear from the impugned order whether
the learned District Judge has held appeal to be maintainable
or has postponed the decision till the disposal of the appeal.
Either course of action are not correct in law. First the appeal
was not maintainable. Secondly, the learned District Judge
ought to have considered the nature of the proceedings and
what was at stake was allegation of disobedience of the order
of the Court. By grant of stay in an appeal, which is not
maintainable, the proceedings taken out in respect of breach of
judicial order have been scuttled. The appropriate course of
action would be to permit the learned Civil Judge to pass the
final order in the matter and then entertain the appeal from
such final order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2014
 Shri Gajanan Bala Gawas,

 Versus
Me. Sagun Narayan Morjkar,

Coram:- N. M. JAMDAR, J.
Date:- 18 February 2015
Citation;2016(2) MHLJ 862

Print Page

When show cause notice issued to deceased will not be invalid?

 The contention of the counsel for the appellants that show cause notices were issued to some of the deceased persons i.e. Parkash Chand, Charan Dass and Gurcharan Singh were not proper show cause notices as envisaged under Section 4 cannot be accepted as in pursuance to these show cause notices where the conditions as specified in Section 4 stood fulfilled cannot be said to illegal when it is an admitted fact that all unauthorized occupants of the premises in question appeared before the Collector and filed their replies to the show cause notices which contain the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made. No prejudice has been caused to the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest in any manner which would have an impact of rendering the proceedings initiated against the appellants illegal or void.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 1032 of 2014 (O&M)

Decided On: 28.01.2015

Appellants: Rakesh Kumar Jaswal and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.J. Vazifdar, Actg. C.J. and Augustine George Masih, J.

Augustine George Masih, J.

Citation;AIR 2015 Punjab and haryana142

Print Page

Whether Contemnor can avoid punishment for contempt of court only on ground that show cause notice was not issued to him?

The appellant’s contention that since the respondents
have not filed affidavit, his case is unrebutted is without any

merit.
A contempt matter is essentially between the
contemnor and the court. On the basis of the record and the
attendant circumstances the court has to decide whether
there is any contempt or not.
No doubt, the respondents
could have filed an affidavit, but merely because there is no
affidavit, the contemnor cannot escape his liability.
The
facts of the case are gross. The contempt is in the face of

High Court.
The fact that the respondents have not
affidavit in reply does not dilute the contempt
committed by the appellant.
 In the ultimate analysis we are of the view that the High
Court cannot be faulted for punishing the appellant for
contempt of court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2004
Ram Niranjan Roy

Versus
State of Bihar and Ors.
Citation;2014 (2) crimes 109 SC

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

Print Page