The single judge held that a son has no locus standi to challenge a minor service penalty imposed on his father by the employer. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Dismissal of the Writ Petition with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
k 1/3 10 wp 15598.22 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15598 OF 2022
Lakshaman Kailas Dudhal ....Petitioner V/S Union of India through the General Manager & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for the Petitioner. Ms. Neeta Masurkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rajiv Jadhav for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 3 JANUARY 2023.
P.C.:
punishment of withholding of increment for a period of two years without future effect. The said punishment is imposed upon Respondent No.3, who is Petitioner’s father.
2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.3 did not declare correctly the family declaration. Respondent No.3 did not disclose the fact that he had remarried with one Smt. Kalpana without divorcing the mother of the Petitioner. The Respondents have illegally
Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2023.01.04 11:29:26 +0530
1/3
k 2/3 10 wp 15598.22 as.doc
imposed the minor penalty upon him. Infact for such a grave misconduct he should have been terminated from service. The learned Advocate submits that one another complaint was filed against Respondent No.3 for holding unauthorized property in his name. No action is taken against Respondent No.3. The order only suggest that upon the complaint of the Petitioner disciplinary enquiry was conducted against Respondent No3 and punishment was imposed of withholding of increment for two years. The learned Advocate submits that another punishment which is given to the Respondent No.3 by the employee is reduction to lower time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year with future effect and affecting seniority. According to the learned Advocate, Respondent No.3 cannot get away with such a minor punishment for such grave misconduct. Learned Advocate further submits that on the similar charges against other employee major punishment of termination of service was awarded by the Respondent-employer.
3 We have heard the learned Counsel for the employer who submits that necessary action has been taken against Respondent No.3.
4 Respondent No.3 is an employee of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In service jurisprudence the Petitioner who is a son of Respondent No.3 would not have locus standi to challenge the punishment imposed upon
2/3
k 3/3 10 wp 15598.22 as.doc
Respondent No.3 by the employer. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on one had and Respondent No.3 on another would be governed by the Service Rules applicable to the employment. The Petitioner though son of Respondent No.3 would be alien to the service conditions between the employer and employee.
5 In light of the above, the Petitioner would not have right to challenge the punishment awarded on the ground that major penalty ought to have been awarded against Respondent No.3.
6 In light of the above, no case for interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2023.01.04
11:28:05
+0530
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a son has locus standi to challenge a minor service penalty imposed on his father.
Lakshaman Kailas Dudhal
Union of India
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
