Bombay High Court
Dnyandeol Ramji Bade vs The State Of Mharashtra And Ors on 17 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
7012.2010WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7012 OF 2010
Dnyandeo s/o. Ramji Bade,
Age 65 Years, Occu. Nil
[Pensioner],
R/o. Plot No.9-B,
'Udyoganand' Apartment,
Saraswatinagar, Garkheda,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's : Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
[Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader of
High Court of Judicature of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad]
2] The Commissioner of
Agriculture, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
3] Superintending Agriculture Officer,
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
4] Taluka Agriculture Officer,
Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS
...
Petitioner in person present.
Mrs. M.A.Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
...
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:44:21 :::
7012.2010WP.odt
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 09.06.2016
Pronounced on : 17.06.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
This Petition is filed with the
following prayers:
B)
To quash and set-aside the judgement
and order dtd. 31-3-2010 passed by
the ld. Member, Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench
at Aurangabad in Original
Application No. 513 of 2008 and for
that purpose issue necessary orders.
C) The order dtd. 10-1-1988 passed by
respondent no. 3 imposing punishment
upon the present petitioner and
further directed the respondents to
extend to the petitioner all
consequential benefits to which he
would be entitled and for that
purpose pass necessary order.
2] Though Advocate Mr.R.D.Sanap is
appointed to represent the petitioner, the
7012.2010WP.odt
petitioner himself appeared in the matter.
Hence, appearance of Advocate Mr.R.D.Sanap
stands discharged.
3] The petitioner, party in-person,
submits that, neither the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal [for short 'MAT'] nor
the appellate or revisionary Authority did
consider the contention of the petitioner
that, the Technical Officer was appointed for
carrying out the measurement of disputed work
and thereupon the said Technical Officer
submitted a report to the authorities, and as
per the said report, it was found that, the
work of site was carried out and the said
work with required strength is still existing
on the site. This clearly shows that, there
was no question of any misappropriation or
illegality on the part of the petitioner.
The MAT did not properly consider the
provisions of Rule-5 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1979
7012.2010WP.odt
for minor penalties. It is submitted that,
it needs consideration that while deciding
the applicant's Revision Application dated
29th September, 2003, respondent nos. 1 and 2,
though were duty bound to consider the
subsequent developments, the said
developments were not considered by the
Revisionary Authority. It is submitted that,
the respondent authorities imposed three
penalties on the petitioner for the same
alleged delinquency. The said punishments
were keeping the petitioner on basic pay of
Rs.425/- of 'Agriculture Supervisor' for a
period of one year, holding him unfit for
further higher promotion for a period of five
years and recovery of an amount of Rs.4,038/-
from him in ten equal installments. By the
same order, respondent no.3 had also directed
as to, in what manner the petitioner's period
of suspension was to be treated. Therefore,
the petitioner, relying upon the pleadings in
7012.2010WP.odt
the Petition, grounds taken therein,
annexures thereto, and all other documents
placed on record, submits that, the Petition
may be allowed.
4] On the other hand, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State relying
upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply
submits that, the Original Application filed
by the petitioner is partly allowed by the
MAT. The order dated 10th January, 1988 is
modified to the extent of reduction of pay of
the petitioner as on 01.01.1983. The
remaining order inflicting the penalty is
confirmed. It is submitted that the said
order has been complied with by respondent
no.4 and revised pension proposal of the
petitioner was submitted to the Accountant
General [A & E]-II, Maharashtra State,
Nagpur, and after sanctioning the revised
pension, the necessary amounts as admissible
to the petitioner from time to time have been
7012.2010WP.odt
paid, as shown in para 5 of the affidavit-in-
reply filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 on 26th
September, 2011. It is submitted that,
difference amount of Pay and Allowances
amounting to Rs.2,58,913/-, the encashment of
leave amount of Rs.20,485/- and the
difference amount of D.C.R.G. amounting to
Rs.23,100/- is paid to the petitioner.
5] We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the petitioner and also
the learned AGP appearing for the respondent
- State. With their able assistance, perused
the pleadings in the Petition, annexures
thereto, the order passed by the Appellate
Authority so also by the Revisionary
Authority and the MAT. Upon careful perusal
of the reasons / findings recorded by the
MAT, it is abundantly clear that, the MAT,
after summoning the original record of the
case, has minutely considered the said
record, including the subsequent technical
7012.2010WP.odt
report of measurement, keeping in view the
fact that more than 20 years have been spent
by the petitioner in litigation, and
therefore, it is not proper to remand the
case for reconsideration afresh. The MAT
itself considered the original record and
modified the order dated 10th January, 1988,
passed by the Authority, by which there was
reduction of pay of the applicant as on
01.01.1983. As a result the petitioner
became entitled for revised pension, and
accordingly, the respondents have paid the
said amount. Upon careful perusal of the
findings recorded by the MAT after adverting
to the record of the case, we find that,
those findings are in consonance with the
material on record. The MAT did consider the
entire material including 2nd measurement
report, which necessarily relates to the
question of fact, and has taken a reasonable
and plausible view. The petitioner did
7012.2010WP.odt
challenge the order inflicting the punishment
before the Appellate Authority, by filing two
Appeals, however, the order passed by the
authorities was confirmed. The petitioner
also filed Revision, and thereafter, Original
Application. Therefore, all Forums have
considered the case of the petitioner relying
upon the documents.
6] Therefore, as already observed,
whether the first measurement report or the
second measurement report, is correct or
otherwise, is a question of fact. We are
satisfied with the view taken by the MAT,
which is in consonance with the material on
record. We are not inclined to interfere in
the impugned judgment and order, hence, the
Writ Petition stands rejected. Rule stands
discharged. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
