Dada Mitaram Dhurve vs The Additional Divisional ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2555 Bom

                                                1



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                       
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                           
    Writ Petition No.  2445  of 2001




                                                          
    Petitioner               :      Dada Mitaram Dhurve, aged about 42

                                    years, Occ: service, c/o Primary Health Centre,




                                              
                                    Warthi, District Bhandara
                                  igversus

    Respondents              :      1)     The Additional Divisional Commissioner,

Nagpur Division, Nagpur

2) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Bhandara

Shri M. V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner

Shri N. S. Rao, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1

None appears for respondent no. 2

Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari And

Kum. I. K. Jain, JJ

Dated : 6th June 2016

Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)

1. Heard Shri M. V. Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Shri N. S. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.

1. Nobody appears for respondent no. 2.

2. Advocate Samarth points out that charge no. 1 and charge no. 3

are found to be not proved by the Disciplinary Authority. Charge No. 2

pertains to the period from 1990 to 1993. He submits that though the court

cases were pending against the petitioner, the petitioner was not supposed to

remain present on all dates and as such, merely a court case was fixed on a

particular date, it does not mean that the petitioner was present before the

Court on that date. It is further urged that on several dates, Advocate for the

petitioner had only appeared. Whenever the petitioner was required to

remain present in the Court, he attended the Court with prior permission

from the office. As these facts are not taken into consideration, according to

the learned counsel, serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Learned

counsel submits that on account of false implication, the Court case was

going on and ultimately though the petitioner could not be convicted, in

departmental enquiry, period of suspension of about forty days has been

treated as a period of suspension and two annual increments of the petitioner

have been withheld. Learned counsel states that without looking into entire

material, the impugned order has been passed.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority have looked into

material and observed that the petitioner had remained present in the Court

to attend his personal case and still he had taken allowances though he did

not perform official duty.

4. The question whether the petitioner had obtained prior

permission to attend the Court; whether it was necessary for him to obtain

leave as such for attending the Court and he could have attended the Court

and his official duties simultaneously, are all disputed questions. Petitioner

has not produced any material on record to show that the findings reached

concurrently by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are

perverse. It was open for him to demonstrate that he was required to remain

present before the Court on particular dates only by filing certified copies of

order-sheets. Similarly, he could have produced other records to show that

he had looked after his duty on all those dates. In this situation, we do not

find any perversity in the findings reached concurrently by both the

Authorities.

5. The report specifically shows the dates on which court was

attended by the petitioner and allowance was drawn by him. The amount of

travelling allowance is also mentioned in the order. Those figures are not

denied by the petitioner. For such misconduct, his two annual increments

have been withheld wihout having any effect on future increments. Thus,

withholding of increments is not with cumulative effect and permanent one.

Period of suspension is only of forty days and he has been denied half of

salary for said period. The action is in accordance with the Disciplinary &

Appeal Rules. We, therefore, find no jurisdiction error on the part of the

Authorities. No case is made out warranting any interference.

Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

KUM. I. K. JAIN, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J

joshi