1 1409WP2347.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2347/2002
Rajendra S/o Ganpatrao Khulkhule,
C/o. V.R. Alur, near Kahate Gokhale
Vyam Shala, Chhoti Dhantoli, Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department Circle,
Yeotmal.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Road Projects, Division,
Chandrapur. : RESPONDENTS
Mr. Rohit Vaidya h/f Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
__________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, Manish Pitale, JJ DATE : 14.09.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K. Deshpande,J.):
1. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the service of Public Works Department of the State Government, ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:40 ::: 2 1409WP2347.02.odt since 24.02.1984. He was terminated in the year 1987 and thereafter, reappointed in 20.12.1989. While he was in service, the respondent passed an impugned order dated 22.01.1993 for recovery of amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- from the petitioner on account of excess payment to the labourers for measurements. It is alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated this amount.
2. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Original Application No. 81/1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.06.2002. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. On 11.09.2002, this Court granted Rule in the matter with ad-interim relief in respect of recovery of amount from the petitioner, which is operating till this date.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which records certain findings on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner, particularly in the light of fact that no inquiry was ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:40 ::: 3 1409WP2347.02.odt conducted by the employer against the petitioner. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in which it is stated in paragraph No. 6 as under:-
"6. It is submitted that the Superintendent Engineer, P.W. Circle, Amravati, has then appointed Shri R.B. Laddha then Executive Engineer, PWD 2 Yavatmal, to investigate in this matter accordingly Shri Laddha then Executive Engineer has checked the measurement of earth work and found that the applicant and Shri A.S. Hanumante and S.H. Sabnis, who were involved in this project have made excess payment of Rs. 1,73,313/-, Rs. 82,937/- and Rs. 2,17,576/- respectively. It is submitted that on the basis of this report Department Enquiry against Shri A.S. Hanumante and S.H. Sabnis was conducted, however, it is seen from the available record that no Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the applicant as his services already terminated under the Zero Budget and as such it might not be called for joint measurement."
5. It is not in dispute that A.S.Hanumante and S.H.Sabnis were superior officers of the petitioner, against whom inquiry was conducted and order of recovery was passed. It is not in dispute that no inquiry, imposing minor punishment was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was reappointed in the year ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:40 ::: 4 1409WP2347.02.odt 1989 and the charges pertain to the date of 26.12.1988. The petitioner was thus out of employment on 26.12.1988.
6. In view of the factual position, we find that the action for recovery of amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- could not have been taken against the petitioner without making any inquiry, at least for imposition of minor punishment, particularly when such inquiry was conducted against the superior officers in respect of the same event. No discriminatory could have been provided to the petitioner. The Tribunal has committed an error in recording findings on merits of the charge leveled. We can not therefore, sustain the order of the Tribunal also.
7. In the result, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.06.2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 81/1993 and also set aside the order dated 22.01.1993 directing the recovery of the amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- from the petitioner. We however, grant liberty to the respondents to initiate complete process of inquiry if any, within period of six months from the date of the knowledge of this judgment. If the inquiry is not completed, ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:40 ::: 5 1409WP2347.02.odt within period of six months, the respondent are restrained from conducting the inquiry. The very object of fixing time limit is to avoid prolongation of inquiry and creating obstructions in release of retiral benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled to and therefore, question of extension of time to complete the inquiry or to impose the punishment on any subsequent occasion shall not be allowed.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gohane
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:40 :::