Salary deduction cannot stand without considering the employee’s response to a show-cause notice.

The petitioners, Rural Health Organizers, challenged the deduction of one day’s salary from each of them for June 2025 for failing to make vaccination-related entries on the U-WIN Portal.

After show-cause notices were issued on 28 May 2025, the petitioners submitted replies explaining, among other things, that they had not received adequate training in computer operations and data entry.

The Court considered only relief clause 10.4, as the petitioners did not press relief clauses 10.2 and 10.3; clauses 10.1 and 10.5 were described as formal.

Whether the respondents could deduct one day’s salary without duly considering the petitioners’ replies to the show-cause notices.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to reconsideration of the deduction and a reasoned decision on their explanations.

The Court applied the principle of natural justice that, where an employee has submitted a reply to a show-cause notice, the authority must consider that explanation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law before taking consequential action.

The judgment cited no specific statute or precedent.

The Court found that the petitioners had submitted replies to the notices, but that the respondents had not duly considered those explanations before deducting salary.

Because the deduction followed without that consideration, the action could not be sustained; the respondents were therefore required to assess the replies and issue fresh, reasoned orders.

The Court expressly left the merits of the explanations undecided.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners’ replies and pass fresh, reasoned orders concerning the salary deductions in accordance with law; if the explanations were found satisfactory, the deducted amounts were to be refunded in accordance with law.