Penalty on public official for procedural delays set aside for violating principles of natural justice.

The Appellant (MSEDCL) challenged an order dated August 1, 2024, issued by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC).

In the underlying proceedings regarding the implementation of a prior order, the Commission observed that MSEDCL had a "casual approach" and failed to file replies or interest calculations despite directions.

Consequently, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Superintending Engineer of Gondia, to be paid personally.

MSEDCL later filed a review petition where the Commission acknowledged that the replies had actually been submitted via email, albeit delayed and not through the official e-filing portal; however, the Commission upheld the original penalty.

1. Whether the Commission’s factual finding regarding the non-filing of replies was legally sustainable given the evidence of email submissions.

2. Whether the imposition of a personal penalty on a specific officer without a prior show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal applied the fundamental principles of natural justice, which mandate that no punitive order should be passed against an individual without providing a notice and an opportunity to be heard.

It further relied on the procedural requirement for judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to consider all material pleadings on record, as ignoring submitted documents without recorded reasons renders a decision legally untenable.

The Tribunal found that the Commission’s primary justification for the penalty—that no reply had been filed—was factually "ex-facie incorrect" because the Commission’s own subsequent review order admitted that communications were received via email in May and July 2024.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the filings were delayed and bypassed the e-portal, a quasi-judicial body cannot simply ignore existing records; it must either condone the delay or formally discard them with reasons.

Furthermore, the Tribunal criticized the arbitrary nature of the penalty, noting that the Commission failed to explain why the Superintending Engineer was personally liable for organizational delays or provide him with a show-cause notice to explain the default, thereby violating the "settled legal position" regarding natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the penalty imposed on the Superintending Engineer, and expunged the adverse observations against MSEDCL contained in paragraph 9.5 of the original order.