1 wp3988-05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3988 of 2005
Keshav s/o Maroti Fulbandhe,
aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
(Presently working as Police Constable
(Buckle N. 420)}, Police Headquarter
Bhandara, R/o New Police Line, No.6,
Bhandara (M.S.) ... ... Petitioner.
-Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara District, Bhandara (M.S.)
3. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
through its Chairman. ... ... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Autkar, h/f Mr. Dangre, counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Joshi, AGP for respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 5th May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Advocate Autkar holding for advocate Dangre for petitioner and learned AGP for respondents.
2. According to advocate Autkar, the judgment and order dated 6 th March, 2003 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:31 ::: 2 wp3988-05 MAT) in O.A. No.666/1992 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as MAT has encroached upon jurisdiction of Competent Authority which was expected to decide under Rule 71 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules,s 1981 ( hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules).
3. Learned counsel states that without any departmental inquiry and even finding by competent criminal court and only for registration of three offences against petitioner, he came to be dismissed from service. In due course of time, petitioner has been exonerated from one offence and other two offences were compounded. MAT has found that dismissal is in breach of principles of natural justice and therefore ordered his reinstatement without back wages and gave employer liberty to hold departmental inquiry.
Learned counsel points out that accordingly petitioner has been reinstated on 10.4.2003 and no departmental inquiry has been held till date.
4. According to him, in this situation provisions of Rule 71 are attracted and it is for competent authority to apply mind in terms of scheme of that rule to find out entitlement of petitioner to full or partial back wages.
5. Learned AGP disputes this. She points out that Rule 71(1) itself considers a provision which gives superimposing power to court. She further points out that Rule 71 cannot be made binding on any court like MAT or ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:31 ::: 3 wp3988-05 other court which is statutorily empowered to decide such controversy.
6. Facts are not in dispute. Provision of Rule 71(1) itself stipulate that it is subject to direction if any of the Court. Here, there is a direction of MAT and MAT has found that petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without back wages. The petitioner has not produced before MAT any affidavit to show that during the period when he was out of employment, he could not get any other service or was without any source of income. Denial of back wages is not questioned before us on any other ground.
7. In this situation, we find the contention misconceived. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Rule is, therefore, discharged. Petition is disposed off. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:01:31 :::