Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In the realm of government service in Maharashtra, disciplinary actions can significantly impact an employee's career. What happens when an order is passed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979? This question arises frequently for public servants facing suspension, demotion, or other penalties. Understanding the available remedies is crucial for protecting one's rights.
This post explores the primary legal recourse, grounds for challenge, and insights from judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Rule 18 pertains to appellate authorities in disciplinary proceedings. It outlines the hierarchy for appeals against orders issued under these rules, often related to suspensions or penalties passed by lower authorities. For instance, if a suspension order is issued by an incompetent authority, Rule 17 provides for appeals, with appellate authorities specified under Rule 18. SHRIKANT VITTHALRAO MUNDHE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Orders under Rule 18 can stem from disciplinary actions for misconduct, such as dereliction of duty under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. These may include dismissal, removal, or lesser penalties, but they must adhere to procedural fairness. Violations can render such orders vulnerable to challenge. Commissioner, Tribal Development Maharashtra State vs Badashaha Dagadu More - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1800
The main legal remedy when an order is passed under Rule 18 is to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This allows the High Court to review and potentially quash the order if it is illegal, arbitrary, or violates principles of natural justice. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093
Courts have consistently held that such orders are subject to judicial review. As noted in key judgments, orders under Rule 18 are amenable to judicial review if they are found to be illegal or violate constitutional or statutory principles. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093
This writ jurisdiction is the appropriate forum because internal appeals under Rule 17 may not suffice if the order itself is fundamentally flawed, such as being passed without authority or due process. The court examines whether the order followed prescribed procedures, was fact-based, and within the disciplinary authority's powers. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093
Several grounds can form the basis of a writ petition:
These grounds ensure fairness, with courts quoting, violation of natural justice, such as not providing an opportunity to the employee to be heard or not following prescribed procedures, renders the order liable to be quashed. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093
Judicial review under Article 226 is not an appeal on merits. Courts refrain from substituting their judgment unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or procedural lapses are evident. Judicial review of disciplinary actions restricted to cases of shockingly disproportionate punishment; courts should not substitute their own conclusions on penalty unless absolutely warranted. Commissioner, Tribal Development Maharashtra State vs Badashaha Dagadu More - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1800
In suspension cases, if passed by an incompetent person, challenges can go before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, but writs remain viable for deeper scrutiny. The focus is on legality, procedural correctness, and fairness. SHRIKANT VITTHALRAO MUNDHE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSState of Maharashtra, through Secretary Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department VS Subhash Dhondiram Mane, Additional Commissioner - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 1855
Post-superannuation, proceedings cannot continue without explicit rules allowing it, and forfeiture of benefits like gratuity requires quantification of loss and a hearing. There is no provision in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979... for continuation of departmental proceedings or extension of service post superannuation. Nagesh VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1087
Related provisions enrich understanding:
These cases illustrate how courts balance discipline with equity, often setting aside orders for procedural flaws. Yuvaraj K Dabhade vs Women And Child Development - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 673NAGORAO SHRINIWASRAO KULKARNI vs MAH. JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN THR MEMBER SECRETARY AND ORS
Not all orders are challengeable:- If passed after due process, without arbitrariness or mala fides, courts hesitate to interfere. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093- Internal remedies like appeals under Rule 17 must be exhausted unless futile. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department VS Subhash Dhondiram Mane, Additional Commissioner - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 1855- No substitution of punishment unless shockingly disproportionate. Commissioner, Tribal Development Maharashtra State vs Badashaha Dagadu More - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1800
If facing a Rule 18 order:1. Gather evidence of procedural lapses or illegality.2. File a writ petition promptly in the Bombay High Court under Article 226.3. Substantiate with specifics like non-compliance or bias. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 10934. Consider Tribunal for preliminary relief if applicable.
Seek expert advice to frame grounds effectively.
Orders under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, are not final; a writ petition under Article 226 offers robust redress for illegality or injustice. Judicial review safeguards natural justice and proportionality, as affirmed across precedents. State of Maharashtra VS Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1093
Key Takeaways:- Primary Remedy: Article 226 writ for quashing.- Strong Grounds: Natural justice violations, arbitrariness.- Court Role: Procedural check, not merit re-decision.- Act Swiftly: Time limits apply to writs.
Stay informed on service rules to navigate challenges effectively. For tailored support, contact a legal professional specializing in service law.
#MaharashtraCivilServices #Rule18Remedy #JudicialReview
Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. ... (4) The Maharashtra Public Service Commission shall be consulted before an order under Sub-Rule (1) is passed in respect of Officers holding posts within their purview. 27. ... , on the ground of misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency: Provided that before any such order is issued, the procedure referred to in rules 8 to 15 of the Ma....
Item three During the aforesaid period and while working in the aforesaid office, he has committed dereliction of duty and has violated Rule No.3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. ... ) No.81 of 2012, whereby, the order of dismissal from service of the sole Respondent was set aside on the ground of disproportionate punishment and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority to impose one of the minor punishments prescribed under #HL_ST....
Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1979 [for short ‘Rules of Pradhikaran, Mumbai, under the Rules of 1979. ... of 1979 against the impugned order. ... Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1979.
Wasudeo Madhukarrao Pande), consideringpari materiaprovisions insub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979,have construed the same to be mandatory. ... Thereafter, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, Inquiry was conducted and the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of removal from service, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary A....
(Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976, supports the rejection order. ... Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 47 of the Rules, 1976 stipulates; "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies- (a) While in service pro....
PPF. 0229-PLO-III dated July 10, 1979, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated July 26, 1979, Part IVA Maharashtra with effect from July 15, 1979, by Notification impugned order of dismissal from service. ... If the order of dismissal under cl. ... Rule 3 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966, provides as follows : p style="position:absolute;white-space
They are aspiring for service benefits under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service Regulation) Act, 1979 and Rules 1981 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity and convenience referred as to the ‘Act of 1979’ and ‘Rules of 1981’) for which the approval of the ... : (i) The terms and conditions of the service of employees of private schools are governed by the Act of 1979 and Rule....
The Petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dated 30 May 2012 and by now period of 13 long years has passed. ... Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. ... Accordingly, the Board of Directors of Maharashtra Gramin Bank made Service Rules namely Maharashtra Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2009 (Service Regulations, 2009) and the said #HL_ST....
As per Rule 17 of the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, read with Rule 25 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the Government has full power to take any action to review or revise any order if it was passed by mistake. ... Hence, an order of revision may be passed after six months, provided that the conditions in provisos two and three are complied with. 18. ... promoti....
Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, provides remedy of appeal and the appellate authorities are provided under Rule 18 suspension passed by the incompetent person. ... of suspension before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
6.3 Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 is also relevant and reads as under: “26. (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living, and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person: (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any pe....
Similarly, in spite of giving the benefit of the debt waiver to the concerned beneficiaries as per government rule, the Corporation is at the financial loss of Rs.81.51 Lakh. Since you are a government servant your conduct is unbecoming of a government employee. As the serious charges leveled against you are proved, why the action of removal from the service should not be taken against you. Therefore, you have committed breach of the provisions of rule 3(1)(one)(two)(three) and 3 (3) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1979.
Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 reads thus : “26. Contracting of Marriages (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person : Provided that the Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as it referred to in clause (1) of clause (2), if it is satisfied that (a) Such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such....
He submitted therefore that the discretion used by the Tribunal in entertaining the application was improper and therefore the order be set aside. Reliance was placed by Mr.Sakhare, on Section 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Mr.Sakhare submitted that the reason given by the Respondent for not availing of this remedy that since the order is passed in concurrence of the Chief Minister and therefore no appellate authority will give a decision against him, is an untenable reason. According to Mr.Sakhare, as per Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipl....
The Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006 is issued keeping in view Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Services [Conduct] Rules, 1979 [For short, ‘Conduct Rules of 1979 ’]. As per Rule 16 of the Conduct Rules of 1979, the Govt. servant is prohibited from engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business or from undertaking any other employment except with the prior sanction of the Govt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
