Bombay High Court
Arun Sakharam Dongre And 7 Others vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 13 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Judgment wp2736.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2736 OF 2015.
1. Arun Sakharam Dongre,
Aged about 46 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Panchayat Samiti, Sironcha,
District Gadchiroli.
2. Nrupnath s/o Pandurang Dholne,
Aged about 47 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Bhamragadh,
District Gadchiroli.
3. Atmaram s/o Fagoji Tembhurne,
Aged about 48 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Dhanora,
District Gadchiroli.
4. Kishor s/o Maroti Khobragade,
Aged about 42 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Sironcha,
District Gadchiroli.
5. Premanand s/o Laxmikant Dhakate,
Aged about 43 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Korchi, District Gadchiroli.
6. Manohar s/o Pochuji Durge,
Aged about 49 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Gadchiroli.
7. Anil s/o Bhagwan Kinnake,
Aged about 42 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Gadchiroli.
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:12:38 :::
Judgment wp2736.15
2
8. Sau. Gayabai Janardhan Sakhre,
Aged about 45 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Gadchiroli. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
District Gadchiroli. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. T.Khan, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
------------------------------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR , J.
DATE : JULY 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
Judgment wp2736.15
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by
respondent no.1 in an appeal preferred by the petitioners under Rule 14 of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that when promotions were effected
on 29.10.2007, promoting Class-IV employees as Class-III employees, the
same was not done in accordance with law. These promotions were subject
matter of challenge in an appeal that came to be decided on 09.01.2012. By
the said order it was observed by respondent no.1 that the promotions ought
to have been effected by considering the government resolution dated
10.05.2005. The said appeal came to be partly allowed and the Chief
Executive Officer was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the
said government resolution. It was further observed that in case it was
found necessary, promotions granted to respondents therein can be
cancelled. Thereafter on 10.12.2012 pursuant to the aforesaid exercise the
petitioners came to be demoted on Class-IV post. Being aggrieved,
petitioners filed an appeal under Rule 14 of the said Rules. By the
impugned order the said appeal had been dismissed and the order of
reversion has been maintained.
4. Shri Khanzode, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted
Judgment wp2736.15
that though various points were raised in the appeal preferred by the
petitioners, the same had not been taken into consideration by respondent
no.1. It was submitted that the order of reversion came to be passed without
granting an opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that if such
opportunity would have been granted, the petitioners would have pointed
out the aspect that they were not liable to be reverted. He further
submitted that in the earlier order dated 09.01.2012, it was observed that if
it was found necessary in the facts of the case, then the orders of promotions
could be cancelled. However, in the impugned order deciding the appeal, all
these aspects have not been considered and the stand of respondent no.2 has
been accepted without assigning any reason.
5. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms.
Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1
supported the impugned order. According to them, no prejudice was caused
to the petitioners by passing the impugned order for the reason that the
petitioners would be getting a deemed date as per their seniority. It was
submitted that grant of opportunity of hearing would not have made any
difference and the ultimate dismissal of appeal was in accordance with law.
It was urged that the order dated 10.12.2012, has been passed after
reconsidering the entire matter and petitioners were rightly reverted.
Judgment wp2736.15
6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and
perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the order dated
10.12.2012 directs reversion of petitioners on a lower pay scale. Initially the
petitioners were promoted in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200. By the
impugned order dated 10.12.2012, they were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.
4440-7440. This order therefore, resulted in civil consequences on the
petitioners. In appeal filed by them, a specific ground was raised that the
petitioners had been promoted after they were found eligible by a duly
constituted departmental promotion committee. The order of reversion was
issued without granting any opportunity to show cause. This aspect has not
been taken into consideration by the respondent no.1 while deciding the
appeal.
7. Perusal of the impugned order also indicates that respondent no.1
has accordingly observed that the entire exercise conducted by respondent
no.2 is in accordance with the procedure. There is no independent
consideration either of the grounds in the appeal, or of the stand taken in
the reply by the respondent no.2. On these counts it is found that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the appeal has not been decided
by considering all relevant aspects. The submission made on behalf of
Judgment wp2736.15
respondents that as the ultimate conclusion of dismissing the appeal is
correct, there is no reason to interfere with the same, cannot be accepted. It
is to be noted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners was a statutory
appeal under Rule 14 of the said Rules, and hence, due consideration of the
relevant aspects, as raised was necessary.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
(i) The order dated 16.04.2015, passed by
respondent no.1 Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur is set aside. The
proceedings in Appeal filed by the petitioners
are restored for being decided afresh and in the
light of the observations made in the order.
(ii) Parties shall appear before the Additional
Commissioner on 01.08.2016, and the
Additional Commissioner shall decide the
appeal within a period of two months from the
Judgment wp2736.15
said date.
(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the respective stand of the
parties and the appeal shall be decided on its
own merit and in accordance with law.
(iv)
Interim order passed by this Court on
15.05.2016 shall continue to operate during
the pendency of the appeal, but, without
prejudice to the contentions of the parties.
(v) Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute
in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Rgd.
Judgment wp2736.15
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 16.07.2016
