Bombay High Court
Virendra S/O Vasantrao Rathod vs The State Of Maha. Through ... on 5 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 0508WP4275.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4275 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Virendra S/o Vasantrao Rathod, Aged about
36 years, Occupation - Service
(Agriculturist), R/o Chinchghat, Tah. &
Distt. Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal
ig Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Collector and Chairman of Character
Verification Committee, District Yavatmal.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer/Chairman/Selection
Committee of Police Patil/Sub-Divisional
Executive Magistrate, Tah. & Distt.
Yavatmal.
4] Vishal S/o Kisan Pawar, Aged 34 years,
Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o Chinchghat,
Tah. & Distt.- Yavatmal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. P. Kariya, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V. P. Gangane, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A.S.Dhore, counsel for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 05.08.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2/4 0508WP4275.16-Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 05.07.2016 rejecting the
application made by the petitioner for grant of stay to the order
terminating the services of the petitioner as a Police Patil.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Patil for Mouza
Chinchghat, District Yavatmal on 05.02.2016. After the petitioner had
worked for more than four months as a Police Patil, according to the
petitioner, without granting any opportunity of hearing and without
serving a show cause notice on the petitioner, the order appointing the
petitioner on the post of Police Patil was cancelled by the respondent
No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer. The order of the respondent No.3 was
challenged by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. The petitioner inter alia challenged the order of the Sub-
Divisional Officer on the ground that the petitioner was not granted any
opportunity, whatsoever, before the appointment of the petitioner, as a
Police Patil, was cancelled without serving a notice on the petitioner.
The Tribunal, however, did not advert its mind to this important ground
in the original application and rejected the application filed by the
petitioner for grant of stay. After the appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled, the respondent No.4 was appointed on the post of Police
Patil.
4. Shri V. P. Gangane, the leaned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, fairly states on
3/4 0508WP4275.16-Judgment
seeking instructions from the respondent No.3 that before cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was not served with a
show cause notice. It is stated that no opportunity was granted to the
petitioner before his appointment was cancelled and the cancellation of
the appointment was based on the opinion of the respondent No.2.
5. We find that the petitioner had a strong prima facie case for
grant of interim relief. It is a well settled proposition of law that an
appointment cannot be cancelled without granting any opportunity to
the party concerned. In this case, the petitioner had worked as Police
Patil for more than four months and suddenly without serving a notice
on the petitioner and without granting any opportunity to the
petitioner to defend his position, the respondent No.3 cancelled the
appointment of the petitioner. The cancellation of the appointment
appears to be in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is
quashed and set aside. We hereby stay the order, cancelling the
appointment of the order, thereby permitting the petitioner to work on
the post of Police Patil, with immediate effect. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Steno copy of the order is granted.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
4/4 0508WP4275.16-Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 09/08/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
