Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Ambadasrao Dongre vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 August, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
9099.2014WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9099 OF 2014
Prabhakar s/o. Ambadasrao Dongre,
Age: 58 Years, Occupation: Retired Employee
of M.A.I.D.C resident of Sathe Chowk,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded,
presently resident at Radha Krishna
Niwas, Near Datta Mandir,
Engineer Colony, Ausa Road, Latur
Dist - Latur ig PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary
Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
(Copy to be served upon the
Ld. Govt. Pleader, High Court,
Bench at Aurangabad)
2. The Maharashtra Agro Industries
Development Corporation Limited
Krushi Udyog Bhavan
AAREY Milk Colony, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai - 65
Through its Managing Director
3. The Deputy General Manager (Admn.)
Maharashtra Agro Industries
Development Corporation Limited
Krushi Udyog Bhavan
AAREY Milk Colony, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai - 65. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 00:36:56 :::
9099.2014WP.odt
2
...
Mr.Avinash Deshmukh, Advocate holding for
Mr.Sumant L. Deshpande, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for Respondent no.1
Mr.B.B.Yenge with Mr.A.S.Savale, Advocates
for Respondent nos.2 and 3.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 28.06.2016
Pronounced on : 01.08.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. This Petition takes exception to the
departmental enquiry initiated against the
petitioner as per the Memorandum bearing No.
Admn/PAD/2013/8709 dated 20.11.2013 issued by
respondent no.3 Deputy General Manager
(Admn.), and also to the show cause notice
dated 05.08.2015 issued by respondent no.3
pursuant to the enquiry report dated
31.12.2014.
9099.2014WP.odt
4. The facts giving rise to the present
Writ Petition as disclosed by the petitioner
are as under:
It is the case of the petitioner
that he has rendered more than 32 years of
service with unblemished record. He got
promotion in the year 2012 to the post of
Incharge Regional Manager for Nanded Region.
His performance has been appreciated by
respondent nos. 2 and 3. When he was working
as Regional Manager at Nanded, he could
achieve remarkable sale of Rs.125.00 crores
during the year 2012-2013 and respondent no.2
Managing Director issued appreciation letter
on 08.04.2013 to him for achieving record
sale of pesticides during the year 2012-13.
It is further the case of the petitioner
that his subordinates, without his prior
permission, exceeded their powers and
distributed excess fertilizers to Venkatesh
Agency at Parbhani, for which he called their
9099.2014WP.odt
explanations and the said thing was informed
to respondent no.2. He took written assurance
from the Venkatesh Agency, Parbhani that the
same would be cleared as early as possible.
5. It is further the case of the
petitioner that he was shocked to receive
show cause notice dated 27.08.2013 issued by
respondent no.3, alleging that the petitioner
supplied fertilizers in excess to Venkatesh
Agency, Parbhani, who was defaulter instead
of supplying the same to old and active
distributor M/s. Ganesh Krushi Vikas Kendra,
Parbhani. The petitioner was asked to give
explanation within 10 days of receiving the
notice to show cause as to why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for
the alleged misconduct. The petitioner
received notice on 06.09.2013. He was
supposed to submit his explanation by
16.09.2013. However, without waiting
explanation from the petitioner, respondent
9099.2014WP.odt
no.3 issued an order of suspension. The
petitioner challenged the said order of
suspension before the High Court, by filing
Writ Petition No.8233/2013. However, in the
said Writ Petition, no interim relief was
granted.
6.
It is further the case of the
petitioner that by letter dated 26.11.2013,
respondent no.3 informed that respondent no.2
has proposed to hold departmental enquiry
against the petitioner, as per Memorandum
dated 20.11.2013 along with statement of
article of charges and the petitioner was
directed to submit his written statement of
defence within 10 days. On 22.02.2014, the
documents sought by the petitioner were
supplied. The petitioner filed written
statement of defence on 22.02.2014, denying
charges levelled against him. The Enquiry
Officer was appointed by the respondents. The
hearing was kept on 18.04.2014 and the same
9099.2014WP.odt
continued till 29.07.2014. During pendency of
the departmental enquiry, a crime was
registered against the petitioner and others
with Shivaji Nagar Police Station on
02.06.2014. Since the petitioner was going
to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2014, he requested
respondent no.2 to fix his pay in the revised
pay scale as per the Government order dated
21.05.2014, whereby the recommendations of 6th
Pay Commission were directed to be
implemented and the arrears to be paid w.e.f.
01.01.2006.
7. It is further submitted that the
petitioner sent notice to respondent
Corporation on 30.07.2014, stating therein
that he is not in a position to attend the
hearing on 29/30.07.2014 and no ex parte
adverse order should be passed. On
31.07.2014, the petitioner retired on
attaining the age of superannuation. The
9099.2014WP.odt
petitioner, by the letters dated 04.08.2014,
18.08.2014 and 05.09.2014 requested the
respondents to grant him pensionary benefits
including difference of pay as per the
revised pay scale, arrears, leave encashment,
gratuity, provident fund, etc. However, the
respondents did not pay any heed. Hence, this
Petition is filed praying for quashing the
proceedings of departmental enquiry initiated
against the petitioner in view of his
retirement on 31.07.2014, as there is no
provision or rule for continuing the enquiry
after retirement. The petitioner also prays
for direction to the respondents to release
all retiral benefits to him arising out of 6th
Pay Commission recommendation with arrears
from 01.01.2006 and all his legal dues such
as gratuity, leave encashment, provident
fund, etc.
8. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the continuation of
9099.2014WP.odt
departmental enquiry after retirement on
attaining the age of superannuation, in the
absence of specific provisions, is not just,
legal and proper. The respondents are duty
bound to pay all retiral benefits to the
petitioner after his retirement including
difference of revised pay, arrears, gratuity,
dearness allowance, leave encashment,
provident fund, etc. The learned counsel
further submits that though the petitioner
appeared on a number of occasions before the
Enquiry Committee, the enquiry was not
concluded by the respondents. The charges
levelled against the petitioner are baseless
and unfounded. The petitioner never put the
Corporation under the financial loss. The
petitioner has never violated the provisions
of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1979 ("the Rules of 1979", for short)
at any point of time. The respondents have
not given reply as to on which rules the
9099.2014WP.odt
departmental enquiry could be continued /
proceeded even after retirement on
superannuation. There is no provision either
in MAIDC's Services Rules or in MCS
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, regarding
continuation / conducting of departmental
enquiry after retirement of Officers. The
Bombay High Court at Principal Seat in the
judgment dated 5th February, 2010 delivered in
Writ Petition No.1930/2005 filed by one
Mr.D.A.Jadhav, the then Manager (Fertilizer)
against the Maharashtra Agro Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. has taken a view
that in the absence of specific provisions to
continue departmental enquiry in MCS
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules or under MCS
(Pension) Rules, the Corporation cannot
continue/conduct departmental enquiry after
retirement/superannuation/resignation. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment
Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors,
9099.2014WP.odt
O.S.F.C. and others1 held that in the absence
of the provisions for continuing an enquiry
after retirement, no authority is vested in
the Corporation for continuing the
departmental inquiry and the delinquent is
entitled to full retiral benefits on
retirement. In the above premises, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that
the Petition may be allowed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 2 and 3 relying upon the
averments in the affidavit-in-reply and
additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the
State made the following submissions:
There were outstanding of Rs.29.40
lakhs to be recovered from M/s. Venkatesh
Krushi Kendra, Parbhani on 06.04.2012 and as
per the proposal of the party under survival
scheme, the transaction started with M/s.
Venkatesh Agency, Parbhani by depositing an
1 1999 (2) SCR 354
9099.2014WP.odt
amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs against the
outstanding dues of Rs.29.40 lakhs. As per
the approval from the office of respondent
no.2, the transaction with M/s. Venkatesh
Agency, Parbhani, was to be made only on
"cash and carry basis". However, the
petitioner sold 2369 Metric tones of
Fertilizers worth approximately Rs.5 crores
from April, 2013 onwards to M/s. Venkatesh
Agency, Parbhani on credit basis and violated
the norms of respondent Corporation, thereby
giving certain guidelines in respect of
selling of fertilizers to the concerned
dealers and it was obligatory on the part of
the petitioner to follow the guidelines and
the directions issued by the respondent
Corporation and to recover the amount of sale
of fertilizers from the concerned dealers
within stipulated period. The petitioner
favoured M/s. Venkatesh Agency, Parbhani and
supplied huge fertilizers on credit and did
9099.2014WP.odt
not recover the amount due towards the said
Agency. It is revealed that the petitioner
has committed irregularity and
misappropriated the huge amount of
Corporation. The learned counsel also invites
our attention to the specific instances
quoted in the affidavit-in-reply about such
misappropriation and irregularities committed
by the petitioner and submits that respondent
no.2 has issued show cause notice to the
petitioner on 27.08.2013. The said notice was
issued as the petitioner has favoured
defaulter dealer M/s. Venkatesh Agency,
Parbhani. It is submitted that the petitioner
was placed under suspension on the basis of
the report dated 05.09.2013 given by the
Deputy General Manager (Fertilizer A/c.) and
Assistant Manager (Fertilizer A/v.). It was
mentioned in the said report that it would be
against the interests of respondent no.2 to
keep the petitioner on such responsible post.
9099.2014WP.odt
It was further observed that besides
conducting the departmental enquiry against
the petitioner, criminal action also
should be initiated. The respondent
Corporation issued memorandum under the
signature of the Deputy General Manager
(Admn.) on 20.11.2013 and the departmental
enquiry is initiated against the petitioner
and the detailed charge-sheet is given to
him.
10. The petitioner has given reply to
memorandum charge-sheet on 17.12.2013. The
enquiry proceeded under the MCS (D & E)
Rules, 1979 and the MCS (Pension) Rules,
1982. The respondent Corporation passed
Resolution no.823 to make a provision in
MAIDC Service Rules on par with Rule 27 of
the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, applicable to
Government Servants so as to enable the MAIDC
to continue / conduct departmental enquiry
even after resignation / retirement /
9099.2014WP.odt
superannuation by the employee of the
Corporation. It was also further resolved
that whenever MAIDC's Service Rules are
silent in the particular matter or no
specific provision is available, then the
provisions in the MCS Rules, 1979, will
automatically apply to the Officers /
Employees of the Corporation.
11. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was trying to avoid enquiry. The
petitioner did not extend full cooperation.
The petitioner filed Writ Petition,
challenging the order of suspension, however,
the said Writ Petition was subsequently
withdrawn by the petitioner. The learned
counsel invites our attention to the
averments in the short affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and submits
that the Service Rules of MAIDC have received
sanction from the State Government on
22.07.1985. The State Government suggested
9099.2014WP.odt
certain changes to the Service Rules and by
incorporating the said changes, the approval
was granted. The State Government at that
time clarified that it is not necessary for
the Government to scrutinize the Rules framed
by the Corporation every time since the
employees of Corporation are not the
employees of State Government. Therefore, the
permission was given to the Corporation to
effectuate or adopt the appropriate Rules as
permissible in law. The State Government,
considering all these aspects, has given
final approval to the Service Rules of the
Corporation, with liberty to incorporate
appropriate changes. It is submitted that
the MCS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are
applicable to the employees of the
Corporation. The said Rules are adopted by
Notification passed by the Corporation on
12.02.1986.
12. It is further submitted that the
9099.2014WP.odt
employees of the Corporation are paid
gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 (for short "the Act of 1972"). Section 4
(6) (a) of the Act of 1972 provides that the
gratuity amount payable to the employee can
be forfeited if the conduct of the employee
has caused loss to the Corporation. The said
provision is enabling provision for recovery
of amount of loss caused. The said aspect has
been considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.
V. Kamal Swaroop Tondon2 and it is
categorically held that the departmental
proceedings are initiated for recovery of
losses sustained by the Corporation due to
the negligence of delinquent employee, the
same can be continued after retirement and
the loss could be recovered from his retiral
benefit. It is submitted that though the said
judgment has been considered in the case of
Mr.Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra
2 AIR 2008 SC 1235
9099.2014WP.odt
Agro Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
in Writ Petition No.1930/2005, decided on
05.02.2010, the facts of that case vis-a-vis
the facts of the present case are
distinguishable in terms that the employee
therein was served with the memorandum on the
day of its retirement. The said aspect of
recovery of loss caused due to the negligence
of delinquent employee has not been squarely
considered in the case of Mr.Dhairyasheel A.
Jadhav (supra).
13. The learned counsel also invites our
attention to the averments in the sur-
rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the
petitioner dated 05.04.2016 and submits that
the facts of the present case are identical
to the facts of the case in Writ Petition
No.3545/2014 (Nagesh Jagdishrao Deshpande Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Other Backward Class
Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. The
9099.2014WP.odt
ratio laid down in unreported judgment of the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Bench
at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3545/2014
17.12.2015 is squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case. On these grounds,
the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and
3 submits that the Petition may be rejected.
14. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State and the
learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 2 and 3. With their able assistance,
perused the pleadings in the petition,
annexures thereto, rejoinder filed by the
petitioner, affidavit-in-reply, additional
affidavit-in-reply and sur-rejoinder filed by
the respondents.(i) Legal question which is
raised by the petitioner in the present
Petition is that whether the respondent
Corporation is entitled to continue with the
9099.2014WP.odt
departmental enquiry/proceedings in the
absence of any provision either in MAIDC
Service Rules or in the MCS (D & A) Rules,
1979? (ii) Whether the ratio laid down in the
unreported judgment of the Divisional Bench
of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad
in the case of Mr.Dhairyasheel A.Jadhav
(supra) can be made applicable in the facts
of the present case to accept the contention
of the petitioner that there is no provision
under the MAIDC Service Rules or in the MCS
(D & A) Rules of 1979 regarding continuation/
conducting of departmental enquiry after
retirement of Officers working in respondent
no.2 Corporation?
15. In Writ Petition No.1930/2005 in the
case of Mr. Dhairyasheel A.Jadhav
Vs.Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd., it appears that the
petitioner therein was working as Manager
(Project) with the Maharashtra Agro
9099.2014WP.odt
Industrial Development Corporation Limited.
The petitioner was relieved from the service
by issuing letter dated 31.12.2003. According
to the petitioner therein, after the
petitioner was served with the relieving
order, a memorandum came to be served upon
him on the very same day i.e. 31.12.2003
alleging misconduct when the petitioner was
working as Fertilizer Manager (Fertilization)
in the Fertilizer Division of the Corporation
in Head Office. According to the petitioner
therein, he was entitled to gratuity and
consequently he submitted an application
under Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act
on 18.07.2004. The respondents, however, did
not pay the gratuity and hence he filed an
application to the Controlling Authority.
When the respondent therein came to know
about it, an enquiry was initiated by issuing
an order dated 04.02.2005 by appointing an
Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. It
9099.2014WP.odt
was the case of the petitioner in the said
Petition that the respondents have no power
to conduct enquiry against him after his
superannuation / retirement from the service
of the respondent. Further, there is no
relationship of employer and employee. It
appears that in the said Writ Petition, the
respondent Corporation filed reply and stated
that the charge-sheet was issued on
3.12.2003. It was specifically stated that
the petitioner's services were governed by
the Maharashtra Civil Services (D & A) Rules,
and the enquiry under the said Rules could
be conducted even after retirement where such
an enquiry had been initiated prior to
retirement. It was further stated that Rule
27 provides for conducting an enquiry against
the employee after superannuation and in view
of the said provisions and underlying
principle and principle analogous thereto an
enquiry can be continued after
9099.2014WP.odt
superannuation.
16. It appears that the petitioner
therein contended that the respondent
Corporation had not adopted the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1982, which
permit an enquiry to be conducted even after
superannuation and in those circumstances the
question of continuing the enquiry would not
arise. The Maharashtra Civil Services (D &
A) Rules do not provide for continuing
enquiry which was initiated at the time when
the employee was in service. It appears that
the petitioner therein placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagirathi Jena(supra) in support of his
contention that in the absence of the
provisions for continuing an enquiry, the
enquiry cannot be continued. The respondent
Corporation in the said Writ Petition fairly
conceded that the Corporation has not adopted
the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
9099.2014WP.odt
Rules, 1982. However, the reliance was placed
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd.
(supra). It was submitted that the enquiry
could be continued once it was initiated when
the employee was in service.
17.
The Division Bench proceeded to
decide the controversy raised in the said
Writ Petition considering the provisions of
Rule 27 (2) (a) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and also the
judgment in the case of Bhagirathi Jena
(supra) and concluded that the enquiry
against the petitioner therein after his
superannuation in the absence of the
provision to continue enquiry, was without
authority of law and allowed the Writ
Petition, thereby holding that the respondent
Corporation was not entitled to continue with
the enquiry, and accordingly the Corporation
should withdraw the said enquiry. Para 9 to
9099.2014WP.odt
12 of the Judgment in the case of
Mr.Dhairyasheela A. Jadhav (supra), are
reproduced herein below:
9. We have heard the learned
Counsel for the parties. We may
gainfully refer to sub rule 27 (2)
(a) of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982,
which reads as under.
"27. Right of Government to withhold
or withdraw pension.
(1) .....
(2)(a)The departmental proceedings
referred to in sub-rule (1); if
Instituted while the Government
servant was in service whether
before his retirement or during his
re-employment, shall, after the
final retirement of the Government
Servant, be deemed to be proceedings
under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were
commenced in the same manner as if
the Government servant had continued
in service."
It is thus clear that in the
event departmental proceedings were
instituted it can be continued and
concluded "as if the Government
9099.2014WP.odt
servant has continued in service".
Thus, by a deemed fiction though
relationship of employer and
employee has ceased, the rules
continue the relationship pursuant
to which the departmental
proceedings can be proceeded with.
There is no provision in the
Maharashtra
ig Civil Services
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which
provide for continuation of enquiry
for major misconduct by issuing of
chargesheet. The penalties are set
out under Section 5. If a Government
servant is not in service then none
of those penalties can be imposed.
Thus, any enquiry initiated and in
which there is no provision for
continuing enquiry must cease on the
employee being allowed to
superannuate, in the absence of the
provisions like rule 27 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982.
10. Let us now examine the
authorities cited at Bar to consider
the contentions urged on behalf of
9099.2014WP.odt
the petitioner herein.
In Bhagirathi Jena (supra),
we may gainfully refer to paragraph
Nos.6 & 7 which read as under:
"6. It will be noticed from the
abovesaid regulations that no
specific provision was made for
deducting any amount from the
provident fund consequent to any
misconduct determined in the
departmental enquiry nor was any
provision made for continuance of
the departmental enquiry after
superannuation.
7. In view of the absence of such
a provision in the abovesaid
regulations, it must be held that
the Corporation had no legal
authority to make any reduction in
the retiral benefits of the
appellant. There is also no
provision for conducting a
disciplinary enquiry after
retirement of the appellant and nor
any provision stating that in case
misconduct is established, a
deduction could be made from retiral
benefits. Once the appellant had
retired from service on 30-6-1995,
there was no authority vested in the
Corporation for continuing the
departmental enquiry even for the
purpose of imposing any reduction in
the retiral benefits payable to the
appellant. In the absence of such
an authority, it must be held that
the enquiry had lapsed and the
appellant was entitled to full
9099.2014WP.odt
retiral benefits on retirement."
Thus, it is clear that only in
the event that there is a provision
for continuing the enquiry, the
enquiry can be continued. The
Supreme Court noted the judgment in
the case of Takhatray Shivadattray
Mankad v. State of Gujarat reported
in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 110, but
distinguished it on the ground that
there was specific provision in the
form of Rule 241-A which enabled
imposition of a reduction in the
pension or gratuity of a person
after retirement.
11. The question is whether the
judgment in the case of Kamal
Swaroop Tondon (supra) has taken a
view which is different than the
view taken in Bhagirathi Jena
(supra). Both the judgments are of
co-ordinate Benches. The judgment
in Bhagirathi Jena (supra) has not
been considered in Kamal Swaroop
Tondon's case (supra). On the facts
there, it will be clear that the
9099.2014WP.odt
respondent had superannuated and
show cause notice was issued after
retirement i.e. after office hours
at 6:45 p.m. on January 31, 2000.
The contention urged on behalf the
Corporation before the Supreme Court
was firstly that if relationship of
employer and employee continues and
the proceedings can be continued and
consequently under the U.P. State
Sugar Corporation Ltd. General
Service Rules, 1988 such proceedings
could have been initiated even after
an employee has retired since they
related to the recovery of losses
caused to the Corporation by the
respondent - employee. The learned
Supreme Court observed that retiral
benefits are earned by an employee
for long and meritorious services
rendered by him/her. They are not
paid to the employee gratuitously or
merely as a matter of bounty. It is
paid to an employee for dedicated
and devoted work. The Court then
referred to the principles of
gratuity.
9099.2014WP.odt
On behalf of the respondent
herein it is contended that the
ratio of the judgment in Kamal
Swaroop Tondon's case (supra) is
that there can be no rigid,
inflexible or invariable test as to
when the enquiry should be continued
and when they should be allowed to
be dropped. The Court then observed
the effect of delay in conducting
the enquiry and observed that there
cannot be laid down a universal
proposition that if there be delay
in initiation of proceedings for a
particular period they must
necessarily be quashed. The Court
went on to observe from the case law
considered that it is clear that the
proceedings could have been
continued since they were initiated
for recovery of loss sustained by
the Corporation due to negligence on
the part of the respondent employee.
It may be noted that it was not
in dispute that the proceedings
could have been initiated even after
the employee had retired since
9099.2014WP.odt
relating to recovery of loss caused
to the Corporation as there were
rules for that purpose.
12. In our opinion, it is no
doubt true, that the gratuity is a
terminal benefit and is subject to
the terms and conditions.
Withholding of the gratuity can
therefore be only if there be the
provisions for withholding it in the
Act or if there being any service
condition which so provide. A
person cannot be charged for a
misconduct if it does not constitute
a misconduct within the definition
of misconduct either in terms of the
standing order or the service
regulations. Similarly no enquiry
can be conducted for misconduct if
there being no statutory provisions.
In the absence of any statutory
provisions for continuing the
enquiry, in our opinion, the ratio
of Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra)
which has directly dealt with the
issue would be applicable. In the
case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) the
9099.2014WP.odt
Court itself noted the effect of
absence of a provision. In our
opinion, therefore, the ratio of
Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra) would
squarely apply. The enquiry
therefore against the petitioner
after his superannuation in the
absence of a provision to continue
enquiry is without authority of law.
18. In the present case also, the
petitioner stood retired from the service
when the enquiry was pending. On comparison
of the legal issues raised in the present
case and in the case of Mr.Dhairyasheela A.
Jadhav (supra) it is clear that the enquiry
cannot be proceeded / continued after
attaining the age of superannuation in the
absence of any provision to that effect. It
is evident from the facts of the case of
Mr.Dhairyasheela A. Jadhav (supra),
memorandum of charge-sheet was served upon
the petitioner on the last day of retirement
and the enquiry was continued after he stood
9099.2014WP.odt
retired. The facts of the present case are
quite identical to that of the said case.
19. In that view of the matter, relying
upon the exposition of law in the case of
Mr.Dhairyasheela A. Jadhav (supra), we are of
the considered view that the present Petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(B) and (B-1), which reads as under:
(B) By issue of Writ of Certio rari or
any other Writ, Order or Direction
in the nature of Writ of Certio rari
the departmental enquiry initiated
against the petitioner as per the
Memorandum bearing No.Admn/PAD/2013/
8709 dated 20.11.2013 issued by
respondent No.3 Deputy General
Manager (Admn.) (Exhibit "A") may
kindly be quashed and set aside;
(B-1)By issue of Writ of Certio rari or
any other Writ, Order or direction
9099.2014WP.odt
in the nature of Writ of certio rari
the Show Cause Notice dated 5.8.2015
issued by respondent No.3 pursuant
to the Inquiry Report dated
31.12.2014 (Exhibit "O-2") may
kindly be quashed and set aside;
20. The rule is made absolute partly.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
21. Since the Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer Clause (B) and (B-1), the
respondents shall calculate retiral benefits
of the petitioner which are mentioned in
prayer clause (C) of the Petition, however,
subject to verification of the factual
details as disclosed from the service record
of the petitioner.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
