Bombay High Court
Rajinder S/O Pushkarnath Kaul vs Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp6586.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6586 OF 2015
Rajinder s/o Pushkarnath Kaul,
aged 63 years, occupation -
Retired, r/o Avantika Vihar,
Kargi Road, Bajarewala Mafi,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Express Towers, 4th Floor, Mumbai
through its Member Secretary.
2. Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan
Pradhikaran, Telangkhedi Road,
Near C.P. Club, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Department of
Water Supply and Sanitation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.M. Kakani, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri M.M. Ekre, AGP for respondent No. 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Kakani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1
& 2 and Shri Ekre, learned AGP for respondent No. 3.
2. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the
respondents to release all the retiral dues including arrears of
pension, gratuity and leave encashment. He has also claimed
arrears of 6th Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009.
3. It is not in dispute that the amount of leave
encashment and arrears on account of Wage revision are
received by the petitioner. Shri Meghe, learned counsel
submits that the only question now surviving is of pension and
gratuity.
4. Shri Meghe, learned counsel points out that in
inquiry which was initiated on 19.03.2005, a report was
submitted by the Inquiry Officer, declaring that the petitioner
could not be found guilty of any charge. The petitioner
thereafter has retired on superannuation on 31.01.2010. The
employer thereafter has called upon the Inquiry Officer to give
his findings on certain charges vide letter dated 13.09.2011.
Those findings are also submitted on 01.11.2011 exonerating
the petitioner even from those charges. Nothing was done
thereafter and hence present petition came to be filed on
27.11.2015.
5. After filing of this writ petition, for the first time,
the Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause notice dated
20.02.2016 informing the petitioner that it is not agreeing with
certain findings of Inquiry Officer and declaring that 1/4th of
the total amount has been paid in excess i.e. about an amount
of Rs.69,238/- is recoverable from him. Similarly, in relation to
Charge Nos. 4 & 11, the amount allegedly paid in excess is
specified and total recoverable from the petitioner is worked
out to Rs.2,31,963/-. He submits that this show cause notice is
without any authority of law.
6. Shri Kakani, learned counsel submits that provisions
of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1979, are applicable. Accordingly, initially as report of Inquiry
Officer was found incomplete in 2011, findings of Inquiry
Officer on specific three charges were called again. After
receipt of those findings, the Disciplinary Authority found itself
not in agreement with certain findings and hence appropriate
show cause notice has been issued on 20.02.2016, calling upon
the petitioner to submits his reply thereto. If said reply is filed
within time bound period, further steps shall be taken.
7. Shri Ekre, learned AGP submits that the petitioner is
in the employment of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
8. It is apparent that after retirement of the petitioner,
the punishments available to the employer are now limited. The
employer has already shown bonafides by parting with the
amount of leave encashment and has also released amount of
wage revision. The petitioner is claiming gratuity and pension
which include benefit of commutation.
9. The show cause notice speaks of total possible
recovery of Rs.2,31,963/-. The petitioner is now receiving
provisional pension. He has retired from the post of
Superintending Engineer. The amount of gratuity receivable by
him, therefore, may be in excess of Rs.2,31,963/-. Hence,
interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioner to
submit his explanation to show cause notice dated 20.02.2016,
within a period of six weeks from today. After receipt of such
an explanation, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall consider it and
take suitable decision thereafter within a period of next six
weeks. It shall be open to the petitioner to challenge that
decision, if it is adverse to him on all counts, as are available to
him in law.
10. However, the respondents shall provisionally retain
only an amount of Rs.2,31,963/- out of gratuity amount
payable to the petitioner and the amount in excess thereof
available with them and payable to the petitioner as gratuity,
shall be released to him within eight weeks from today. The
acceptance of such an amount by the petitioner or its release by
the respondents shall be without prejudice to their rival
contentions. The demand of petitioner for grant of pension,
benefit of commutation or for payment of interest on belated
release of these amounts shall be looked into after the final
orders in the matter are passed by the employer, if any occasion
therefor arises.
11. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
