Bombay High Court
Sharda Jayram Bhalerao vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 21 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
12578.15WP
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12578 OF 2015
Sharda d/o Jayram Bhalerao
Age : 42 years, Occ : Government
Service as Lady Police Constable
(At present terminated)
At S.P. Office (Rural) with
District special Branch, Aurangabad
R/o Jaybhim Nagar, Ghati,
Aurangabad. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary
Department of Home,
M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Special Inspector General of Police,
Aurangabad Range Aurangabad
Near Youth Hostel, Baba Petrol Pump,
Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police (Rural),
T.V. Centre, Hudco,
Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.D.V. Bodhankar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. the Respondent/State
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30TH JUNE, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 21ST JULY, 2016
12578.15WP
JUDGMENT : (S.S. SHINDE, J)
This Petition takes exception to the
impugned order dated 4th May 2009 issued by
Respondent No.3. There is further prayer to
issue directions to the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in the service and
grant continuity of service, back wages, and
other ancillary benefits.
2. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the impugned
order passed by Respondent No.3 on 4th May,
2009, thereby terminating the services of the
petitioner is without adherence to the
provisions of Rule 78(6) of the Maharashtra
Police Rules (Manual), 1999. The said Rule
clearly provides that one month's notice
before removal of service is mandatory or
before removal of service departmental
12578.15WP
enquiry should be conducted against the
government servant. But in the instant case
before issuing order dated 4th May, 2009, no
procedure laid down in the above rule and
sub-rule is followed by the Respondnets. In
fact the petitioner completed near about
continuous more than 10 years service, and
therefore, he is entitled for the pensionary
benefits. The learned counsel invites our
attention to the notes of arguments, which
are placed on record and submits that the
Petition deserves to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, the learned
A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State,
relying upon the various orders passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, High
Court and the impugned order, submits that on
5th June, 1999 in view of the interim order
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal to reinstate the petitioner in
12578.15WP
service in Misc. Application No. 37 of 1999,
the petitioner was reinstated in service with
clear understanding that the said order of
reinstatement is issued subject to outcome of
the Original Application/Appeal filed by the
petitioner for temporary period. Therefore,
there was no question of issuing notice to
the petitioner before terminating her
services, when such reinstatement was made
subject to outcome of pending proceedings
before Competent Forum.
4. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent-
State. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petition,
written notes of arguments and annexures
thereto.
12578.15WP
5. Upon careful perusal of the copies
of the documents placed on record, it emerges
that the petitioner's services were
terminated by Respondent No.3 w.e.f. 20th
June, 1996. The said order was challenged
before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal by way of filing Original
Application. However, the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal rejected the said
Original Application. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3820 of
2006 (Sharda d/o Jayram Bhalerao V/s The
State of Maharashtra and another) before the
High Court and the High Court dismissed her
Writ Petition on 6th December, 2006. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and order of the
High Court in the said Writ Petition, the
petitioner filed Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court and the said Special
Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme
Court on 30th April, 2007.
12578.15WP
6. It is true that during pendency of
the Original Application, the petitioner was
acquitted from the criminal case, and
therefore, the Tribunal while deciding the
Misc. Application No. 37/1999 granted interim
relief in favour of the petitioner, directing
the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner
on the post of Lady Police Constable. In
pursuance of the said interim order, the
Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad
on 5th June, 1999 issued the order for
reinstatement of the petitioner, however,
subject to outcome of the pending proceedings
before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal on temporary basis.
7. As already observed, the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said
Original Application by the judgment and
order dated 4th April, 2006. Thereafter, the
12578.15WP
petitioner's Writ Petition was dismissed and
Special Leave Petition filed before the
Supreme Court was also dismissed. Therefore,
there is no substance in the contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that before issuing the impugned
order, one month's notice is mandatory or
before removal of service departmental
enquiry should have been conducted as per
sub-rule (6) of Rule 78 of the Maharashtra
Police Rules (Manual), 1999. By virtue of
interim order, the petitioner continued to be
in service for some period, however, her
appointment was on temporary basis, and even
the original termination order was during the
period on which the petitioner was appointed
on temporary basis and at the relevant time
had not completed three years.
9. In the light of the discussion in
foregoing paragraphs, we are unable to
12578.15WP
persuade ourself to grant any relief to the
petitioner. Hence the Petition stands
rejected. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
SGA
