WP.5889.07
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 5889/2007 Syed Liyakatali Major, occu: service R/o Behind Nehru School, New Basti, Chandrapur. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forests Department Mantralaya, Bombay -32.
2) Commissioner and Director of Land Records
M.S. Pune.
3) Deputy Director of Land Records
Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
4) Enquiry Officer and Special Superintendent
Land Records Department
Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS
(R-4 deleted as per Court's order
dated: 09.01.2008)
...........................................................................................................................
Ms. R.P. Jog, Adv. h/for Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. M.S.Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent nos.1 to 3 ...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 5th June, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:56 :::
WP.5889.07
2
Ms. R.P. Jog, the learned counsel holding for Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the adjournment of the matter by one week. However, we are not inclined to grant an adjournment as the issue involved in this petition is extremely short and is concerned with the part of the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that denies the back wages to the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner was not in service. Also, we find that during the last roster, this petition could not be heard as this petition was assigned to a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.M. Deshpande was a member and the Hon'ble Judge does not hear the petitions in which Mr.A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate files the Vakalatnama. Today though this Bench was in a position to hear the petition, from tomorrow there is a change in the assignment and again the matter would not be heard till the assignment changes after a couple of months as Hon'ble Justice R.K. Deshpande, who is a member on the Bench for hearing these matters, would also not be hearing the petitions in which Advocate A.C. Dharmadhikari is the arguing counsel. We have read the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, with the assistance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the adjournment, especially when the matter is extremely short and the same could have been easily argued even with a short notice.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 10th March 2005, so far as it ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:56 ::: WP.5889.07 3 denies back-wages to the petitioner after directing his reinstatement in service.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondents and at the relevant time ie, in the year 1987, he was working in the Office of the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty regularly and further remaining absent unauthorizedly while working in the office of the Consolidation Officer, Chandrapur. A charge that the petitioner had misbehaved with the Consolidation Officer during the period between 23.03.1987 and 28.03.1987 was also levelled against him. An enquiry was conducted and both the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved. Since the charges were grave and serious, the petitioner was removed from the service. The petitioner challenged the order of his removal in a departmental appeal. The departmental appeal was however dismissed. The petitioner then challenged the order of his removal as also the order of the appellate authority in Original Application No.1074/1994. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal held that there was no flaw in the departmental enquiry and the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner. The Tribunal, however, felt that the punishment reflected upon the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service but without back wages. The part of the order that ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:56 ::: WP.5889.07 4 denies the back-wages, is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
4. On a reading of the impugned order and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, as also the grounds raised in the same, it appears that the Tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to back-wages. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved and the the Tribunal had held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were just and proper. The Tribunal held that the misconduct was proved against the petitioner but the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was harsh. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service but without back wages. In fact, the Tribunal had observed in paragraph 13 of the judgment that it was necessary to set aside the order of removal and direct the respondents to inflict a punishment other than dismissal, removal, termination or compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Though the Tribunal had held so, in the very next paragraph, the Tribunal held that the respondents should reinstate the petitioner in service. Be that as it may, since the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved and the petitioner had committed serious misconduct of misbehaving with the Consolidation Officer and leaving the place where the Consolidation Officer had gone for a meeting with his subordinates, it cannot be said that the petitioner should not be punished at all. The Tribunal had rightly held that though the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement, he would not be entitled to back wages. Since the charges ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:56 ::: WP.5889.07 5 levelled against the petitioner in respect of indisciplined behaviour with his superiors and his unauthorised absence are proved, the order of denial of back wages cannot be said to be bad in law. Granting back wages to the petitioner would be like favouring the petitioner who is held guilty of serious misconduct and has not worked from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement. There is no flaw whatsoever with the order of the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The order of the Tribunal is just and proper so far as it denies the back wages to the petitioner.
In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:35:56 :::