Court quashes penalties sans due process, directs show-cause notice issuance for defense.

The Court quashed the impugned order imposing penalties and GST without following proper procedures, directing the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner must submit explanations, and authorities must consider them before making a decision within eight weeks. The Court emphasized adherence to Model Standing Orders for imposing penalties and highlighted the necessity of providing opportunities for defense before penalties are imposed. The writ petition was partly allowed with specified directions, and no costs were imposed, resulting in the closure of related miscellaneous petitions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against penalty and GST imposition without proper procedure followed.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner, a Salesmen/Supervisor, challenged a memo imposing penalty and GST without proper procedure. The Corporation's Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts was not notified to employees, leading to lack of understanding of procedures. Circulars regarding MRP violations were also not circulated. The petitioner claimed no show-cause notice or opportunity to defend was provided before the penalty was imposed. The impugned order was passed unilaterally without any enquiry or notice to the petitioner.

The third respondent justified the actions citing violation of MRP as an offence under the Legal Metrology Act. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after a surprise check found MRP violations. The petitioner was transferred pending proceedings, and fines were advised to be paid. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity for the delinquent official to defend their case, as per statutory procedures.

The Court held that for imposing penalties or minor punishments, authorities must issue show-cause notices and consider explanations before making decisions. It was noted that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this case. The respondents failed to prove that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity before the penalty was imposed.

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner within four weeks. The petitioner was instructed to submit explanations within two weeks of receiving the notice. The competent authorities were directed to consider the materials and explanations submitted, make a decision, and pass orders within eight weeks. The Court clarified the procedures for imposing minor and major penalties, emphasizing adherence to Model Standing Orders.

In conclusion, the writ petition was partly allowed with the mentioned directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result.

---