State Of Maharashtra vs Gulab Ramchandra Chaudhari
2009 Latest Caselaw 100 Bom

                                         1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
                          NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR




                                                                                
                       WRIT PETITON NO.760 OF 2002




                                                        
PETITIONER:
     State of Maharashtra, through Superintending Agriculture Officer, Amravati
     Division, Amravati




                                                       
                                     VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
     Gulab Ramchandra Chaudhari, aged about 35 years, Agriculture Supervisor, at



                                             
     present serving at Umarkhed, Sub Division, Tq. Umred, District Yavatmal.
                              
===========================================================
Smt. Sharda Wandile, AGP for the petitioner
                             
Shri A.M. Gordey, Advocate for the respondent.
============================================================
            

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT

It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the parties

that the issues involved in this writ petition are almost identical to the issues

involved in Writ Petition no.838/2002 which is decided by this court by the

judgment dated 20.11.2009.

2] I have perused the record of this case and the record of Writ petition No.

838/2002 and have found that the issues involved in both these writ petitions are

almost identical.

3] Hence for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 20.11.2009 in Writ

Petition No.838/2002, this writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order

passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 6.7.2001 is hereby modified. It is

hereby held that the order dated 8.1.1988 is quashed, so far as it inflicts the first and

third punishment i.e. punishment of treating the period of suspension as suspension

time and the stopping of one increment permanently for the period of 2 years. The

order dated 8.1.1988 however stands, so far as it directs recovery of Rs.3443.48

from the respondent as the government has suffered a loss of that amount, in view of

the mistake committed by the respondent.

4] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

SMP.