Bombay High Court
Pushpa Sahebrao Patil vs Zilla Parishad Jailgaon & Others on 25 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/1501/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1501 OF 1997
Pushpa Sahebrao Patil,
deceased through L.R.
Sahebrao Himmatrao Patil,
Age 71 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o Kajgaon, Tq. Bhadgaon,
District Jalgaon. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
through its Chief Executive
Officer.
2. The District Health Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
3. The Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.R.Barlinge
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri P.B.Patil
AGP for Respondents 3 & 4 : Shri S.D.Kaldate
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 25, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated
18.4.1995, delivered by respondent No.1 - Chief Executive Officer,
thereby awarding the punishment of stoppage of rise in salary for
WP/1501/1997
three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner is also aggrieved
by the order dated 6.6.1996, delivered by respondent No.2 - the
Divisional Commissioner, by which, the appeal of the petitioner has
been dismissed.
2. It needs mention that the petitioner / employee, subsequently
passed away during the pendency of this petition and her husband
has been brought on record as her legal heir.
3.
Shri Barlinge, learned Advocate for the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned orders. He has narrated the
entire facts of the case in details, which are borne out from the
petition paper book and the record available. He, however, states
that in the Appeal, preferred by the deceased employee, the enquiry
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not at issue. It was the
quantum of punishment that was under challenge, coupled with the
submission that the charge levelled upon her was not proved.
4. He has seriously criticized the order dated 6.6.1996, on the
ground that it does not set out reasons in support of the conclusions
drawn, it is a cryptic order and being an unreasoned order, it
deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has placed reliance upon
the judgment of this Court (Full Bench) in the matter of Anil Amrut
Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge and another [2002 (3) Mh. L.J.
WP/1501/1997
750], and contends that if the order is unreasoned, the same
deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted for a
decision afresh.
5. Shri Patil, learned Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned AGP, support the impugned orders.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, I
find that the charges levelled upon the deceased in the enquiry were
held to be proved. A detailed second show cause notice was served
upon the deceased seeking her explanation as to why she should not
be dismissed from service for proved misconducts. It needs mention
that the charges proved against the deceased were of the nature of
dis-obedience of the orders of the superiors, refusal to join the place
of transfer, refusal to handover the charge under the orders from the
superiors, remaining unauthorizedly absent from 2.6.1990 upto
30.6.1992 (two years), mis-leading the establishment with regard to
her husband taking away her service book, misleading the
establishment while taking salary advance for the second time by
suppressing the first instance and threatening the management with
self-emolation.
7. There can be no dispute that the charges held to be proved
against the deceased are of grave and serious nature. Strict Rules of
WP/1501/1997
evidence as like in criminal proceedings, cannot be made applicable
in service jurisprudence. The evidence produced before the enquiry
officer having been sufficient to conclude that the charges have been
proved, led the establishment to propose the punishment of dismissal
from service.
8. It is noteworthy that the deceased submitted a detailed
explanation on 20.2.1995, contending that the charges have not been
fully proved against her and hence she should be exonerated.
Respondent No.1 / Disciplinary authority considered the explanation
of the deceased and concluded that since some of the charges are of
serious nature, she should be awarded the punishment of stoppage of
wage increments for a period of three years.
9. The thrust of Shri Barlinge's submission is that the appellate
authority has not applied it's mind and has delivered a cryptic order.
I have gone through the impugned order in the light of his
submissions. Considering the challenge posed and since the charges
were proved against the deceased, the appellate authority concluded
that the disciplinary authority had in fact, shown leniency towards
the deceased and though the punishment of dismissal from service
was proposed, the same was reduced considerably to stoppage of
wage increments for three years.
WP/1501/1997
10. In my view, the conclusions drawn by the appellate authority
in the light of the charges proved against the deceased, the proposed
punishment and the actual lesser punishment awarded, cannot be
termed as being perverse or erroneous. Since the appellate authority
need not once again deal with each and every charge while deciding
the appeal, I do not find that, that could be a cause for branding the
impugned order as perverse, since the issue was only of the
proportionality of the punishment.
11.
In the light of the above, this petition being devoid of merits
is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
