Bombay High Court
Sevaram S/O Shravanji Hedaoo vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:16709-DB
1 WP554.22 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 554 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Sevaram S/o Shravanji Hedaoo,
Aged 56 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Plot No. 40, Jai Bajrang Society,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440 013.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through Deputy General Manager
(Monitoring Committee No.3), having office
at Office Quarters, Jadhav Square,
Behind S.T. Bus Stand, Ganeshpeth,
Nagpur - 440 018.
2] Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
S. T. Chandrapur, having office at MSRTC,
Chandrapur Divisional Office, Tadoba Road,
Chandrapur.
3] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through its Vice President and Managing
Director (Authorized Officer),
Maharashtra Regional Transport Bhawan,
Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai - 400 008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Charpe, Advocate for the respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI and
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Smt.Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)
2 WP554.22 (J).odt
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :
(a) by a suitable writ, order or direction, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-T) issued by respondent no.1 directing recovery of the salary amount of the petitioner and ordering a separate enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner for his physical absence from office during the period of lockdown mentioned therein, and the subsequent communication dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-U) issued by the respondent no.2 recovering the said salary amount from the salary of the petitioner ;
(d-i) quash and set aside the proposed inquiry which is to be conducted on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner dated 24.08.2022.
3. The petitioner is working as a 'Mechanical Engineer' (Operations) with respondent no.1 since year 1996 and he is a Class-I officer. He was posted at Chandrapur during the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. It is not in dispute that on 23.03.2020, Government of Maharashtra had declared lockdown in the entire State with immediate effect, till 31.03.2020. The Central Government also declared lockdown on 25.03.2020, which was extended from time to time till 3 WP554.22 (J).odt 03.05.2020 due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. The workshop at Chandrapur, where the petitioner was posted, was closed down w.e.f. 24.03.2020. The petitioner proceeded to his home town during the period of lockdown. By communication dated 30.04.2020, he was directed to report to work. He availed leave from 01.05.2020 till 08.05.2020 and joined duties on 23.05.2020 after 14 days mandatory quarantine. The petitioner was paid salary during the time he was at his home town, which is now sought to be recovered on the ground that the petitioner had left the headquarters without prior permission and further, by notice dated 24.08.2022, issued during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner is called upon to give his explanation as to why enquiry should not be conducted for alleged misconduct viz. leaving the headquarters without prior permission.
4. We have perused the record and heard Mrs. Radhika Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Charpe, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
5. It is not in dispute that in the wake of outbreak of Covid - 19 Pandemic, the State of Maharashtra had imposed lockdown during 4 WP554.22 (J).odt the period from 23.03.2020 to 30.03.2020. The Central Government had declared lockdown on 25.03.2020, which was extended from time to time till 03.05.2020. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the employees and the officers were permitted to work from home during the lockdown period. There is no specific denial that the petitioner was permitted to work from home during the lockdown period and that he, in fact, worked from home till 30.04.2020.
6. By notice dated 30.04.2020, the petitioner was called upon to resume duty. He was sanctioned leave from 01.05.2020 till 08.05.2020. Nagpur, the home town of the petitioner, was at the relevant time in Red Zone category, in view of the risk factor. Consequently, as per the guidelines-SOP issued by the Government, the travel/movement was restricted. As per the prevalent rules, the petitioner had to apply for travel E-pass for travelling from Nagpur to Chandrapur, which was in Orange zone category. He also obtained medical certificate and sought relaxation of quarantine period and after the mandatory quarantine period of 14 days, the petitioner resumed duties on 22.05.2020.
5 WP554.22 (J).odt
7. It is thus admitted that during the entire lockdown period, excluding the period during which the petitioner was on leave, he worked from home. In such circumstances, the proposed recovery of salary paid to the petitioner for the period, during which he was on leave or during the period he had rendered services, is impermissible. Hence, in our view, the action proposed against the petitioner is perverse, arbitrary and totally unjustifiable.
8. The petitioner has also challenged notice dated 24.08.2022, issued during the pendency of the petition to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for leaving the headquarters without prior permission. We are conscious of the fact that the Court should not ordinarily quash a show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings, unless it is satisfied that the basis on which the disciplinary proceedings are initiated or the notice is issued, is bad and/ or such notice does not prima facie disclose any such misconduct which necessitates disciplinary action.
9. As noted above, the workshop, wherein the petitioner was working, was shut down and the petitioner was permitted to work from 6 WP554.22 (J).odt home during the lockdown period. The petitioner has placed on record correspondence dated 02.08.2021 addressed by his superior officer to the Vigilance Officer at Chandrapur, wherein he has specifically stated that the petitioner was given oral permission to leave the headquarters. The fact that Mr. Rajendra Patil, the Superior officer of the petitioner, had conveyed to the Vigilance Officer that the petitioner was granted oral permission to leave headquarters, has not been disputed. In the 'written submissions' signed by the counsel for the respondents and affirmed by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Chandrapur, it is stated that the superior officer Mr. Rajendra Patil, who was due for retirement, must have issued the letter dated 02.08.2021 to support the case of the petitioner. The superior officer had retired on 31.08.2021. No explanation or clarification was sought from him though he was available in the office. It is thus evident that the show cause notice proceeds on a presumption that the superior officer might have given the said letter to help the petitioner. Disciplinary inquiry on the basis of presumption cannot be countenanced.
10. It is also relevant to note that there is considerable delay in issuing the said show cause notice. Moreover, the show cause notice 7 WP554.22 (J).odt was issued during the pendency of this petition and after this Court had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. All these facts give an indication that the action proposed to be taken against the petitioner is not bona fide.
11. The petitioner has rendered services since 1996. He is due for retirement on 31.12.2023. The record indicates that he had worked from home during the lockdown period. The material on record also shows that he had left the headquarters and gone to his home town with oral permission of his superior officer. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 as well as the notice dated 24.08.2022, which does not disclose any misconduct, are perverse, arbitrary and not sustainable.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d-i). The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) Diwale Signed by: DIWALE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/12/2023 16:07:05