Bombay High Court
Shri. Ulhas Narayan Lakhan vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 2 December, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 /3WP-1630-14-244
Nalawade
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2014
Shri. Ulhas Narayan Lakhan,
A-26, Shree Shrush C.H.S.,
Mith Bunder Road,
Opp. K.C.Engineering College,
Thane (E),Thane 400 603. ...Petitioner.
vs.
1.
State of Maharashtra and ors.
Through Principal Secretary,
Finance Dept., Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032.
2. The Director,
Accounts and Treasuries,
M.S. Mumbai, Govt. Barrack Nos. 15 and 16.
Free Press Journal Marg,
Mumbai 21.
3. The Secretary to Government
(Accounts and Treasury),
Finance Dept., Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents.
Mr. M.S.Topkar with Ms.Pavitra Manesh for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM:ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.S.GADKARI, J.
DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2016
2 /3WP-1630-14-244
ORAL JUDGMENT: (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1) The petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 12.4.2012 whereby considering the
background, events and the earlier order so passed read
with the charges so framed against the other employees
including the nature of mistakes and the punishment given
by the department and ultimately while concluding the
enquiry has restricted to minor penalty so imposed.
2)
The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner joined the State Government
in Finance Department on 14.2.1978 and worked on
various posts. When he was working as District Audit
Officer, he appeared for interview conducted by MPSC for
the post of Administrative Officer, Foods and Drugs
Administration and he joined that post on 23.12.1997.
While working as Senior Auditor, the petitioner
was issued charge sheet dated 31.12.1996 for alleged
lapses when the petitioner was serving as Superintendent
in the Pay and Accounts Office.
The petitioner denied the charges and refuted
the allegations vide reply dated 14.1.1997. The
respondents ordered joint enquiry of all the employees who
were issued charge sheets vide order dated 24.4.1997.
However, no steps were taken by the respondents for long
time. Ultimately imposed the different punishments.
3 /3WP-1630-14-244
3) After going through the events and submissions
and the reasons so made and specifically with regard to
the aspect of different punishments given to other officers
in the common enquiry and it is only against the petitioner,
the order of dismissal was passed which ultimately resulted
into imposing of the minor penalty, we see no case is made
out to interfere the same. There is no case of any
discrimination or arbitrariness.
4) Merely because others were imposed with only
deduction of compensation for one year that itself in our
view cannot be the reason in the background so recorded
in the order to interfere with the order. There is no
perversity and/or illegality in passing such orders by the
authorities and the tribunal.
5) Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, we
see no case is made to interfere. Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
(A.S.GADKARI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
