wp295.07.J.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.295 OF 2007
1] Zilla Parishad, Wardha
through it's Chief Executive
Officer.
2] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
Bhaurao Bhagwan Golhar
Aged 62 years,
Occupation: Retired,
R/o Sant Gyneshwar Ward,
Hinganghat, District Wardha. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri M.R. Rajgure, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th MARCH, 2017.
DATE: 30
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This petition challenges the order dated 24.10.2005
passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in Complaint (ULPN) No.119 of 2003. The complaint has been allowed and it is declared that the petitioners are engaged in an unfair labour ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 ::: wp295.07.J.odt 2/6 practice prescribed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU and PULP Act) by issuing the order of punishment dated 15.01.2005 and reducing the pension of the respondent-complainant by 5% permanently and making recovery of Rs.3,03,701/- from the pensionary benefits of the complainant.
2] The facts not in dispute are as under:
The respondent, hereinafter called as "the complainant", was working as Junior Accounts Officer in Panchayat Samiti at Hinganghat. An enquiry against him was conducted for the act of negligence on his part in not depositing 124 cheques of Rs.8,55,457/- and 94 cheques of Rs.1,59,333/- within a stipulated time. The enquiry report was submitted on 23.10.2001, holding the complainant guilty of the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 11.11.2002 was issued for punishment of reducing the pension of the petitioner by 25% and for recovery of Rs.9,11,103/- which is the interest on the loss of Rs.99,47,768/- incurred, from the pension payable to the complainant. This show cause notice was issued after the ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 ::: wp295.07.J.odt 3/6 complainant retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2002. By an order dated 15.01.2003 the ultimate punishment imposed upon the complainant was - (i) to reduce the pension by 5% permanently and (ii) to recover an amount of Rs.3,03,701/- from the retiral benefits available to the complainant.
3] In the challenge to the order dated 15.01.2005 before the Industrial Court in complaint (ULPN) No.119 of 2003, it was held that the departmental enquiry against the complainant was continued after the retirement of the complainant on 30.09.2002. The second show cause notice was issued on 11.12.2002 and the order of punishment was passed on 15.01.2003. It holds that there was no order passed by the petitioner-employer, intimating the complainant that the enquiry proceedings shall be continued even after the complainant attained the age of superannuation. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Madanlal Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 581, it is held that the order dated 15.01.2005 cannot be sustained and it has therefore, quashed and set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 :::
wp295.07.J.odt 4/6 4] Shri Meghe, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied upon Rule 27 (2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ("MCSR" for short) for the proposition that the enquiry was initiated when the complainant was in service, the final report was submitted before the complainant retired from service. Though, prior to retirement on 30.09.2002 earlier show cause notice was issued, subsequent show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2002 after the retirement and the punishment was imposed on 15.01.2003. He submits that Rule 27 (2)(a) does not speak of any order to be passed for continuation of enquiry after the retirement. He submits that at any rate, enquiry was completed when the report was submitted on 22.10.2001. He therefore, submits that the Industrial Court committed an error in relying upon the decision of this Court in Madanlal Sharma's case cited supra.
5] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Madanlal Sharma's case cited supra. In paragraph 21 of the decision of the Division Bench has clearly considered the provision of Rule 27 (2)(a) of MCSR, though it is not specifically referred therein. The Division Bench holds that in ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 ::: wp295.07.J.odt 5/6 case of an enquiry which is initiated while the Government servant was in service, it is necessary that an order is passed intimating the delinquent that the enquiry proceedings shall be continued even after he had attained the age of superannuation, lest it shall be presumed that the enquiry came to an end and the delinquent was allowed to retire honourably. In my view, the Industrial Court did not commit any error in following the said decision, which was clearly applicable to the facts of present case. 6] It is informed that the petitioner-Zilla Parishad has already recovered the amount from the pension or the gratuity payable to the complainant. If any such amount is already recovered from the complainant, either from gratuity payable or from the pension, the same shall be repaid to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of repayment. Necessary calculations be carried out within a period of one month and the payment shall be made within one month thereafter. If any amount of gratuity is withheld, the same shall also be released within a period of 15 days from today. The petitioner shall not deduct any amount from pension or gratuity payable to the complainant from the month of March 2017 on the basis of the order which is set aside. ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 :::
wp295.07.J.odt 6/6 7] In view of this, I do not find any substance in the
present petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:02:24 :::