Bombay High Court
Ku. Manisha Vasantrao Khune vs Zilla Parishad Bhandara Thr. Its ... on 3 May, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP6949.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2015
PETITIONER : Ku. Manisha Vasantrao Khune,
Aged about 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Wadegaon Railway, Tal.Arjuni Morgaon,
Dist. Gondia.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS : 1] Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
ig through, its Chief Executive Officer,
2] The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H. N. Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.1
Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the respondent no.2
------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : MAY 03, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the
stage of admission itself.
2] By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order
passed by the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, dated
29.09.2015 in Appeal No. 89/2014-15.
2 WP6949.15.odt
3] Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no.1 -
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, thereby terminating the
services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner misled the
concerned office by suppressing certain facts, the petitioner had approached
the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner, by presenting an appeal. As
there was some delay, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed
along with the appeal.
4] Mr. Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner allowed the
application for condonation of delay, dismissed the appeal only referring that
the order passed by the respondent no.1 - Chief Executive Officer is just and
proper as there are reasons reflected in the said order. It is the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 -
Commissioner ought to have granted opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner/appellant and on hearing the petitioner/appellant, if the
respondent no.2- Commissioner was satisfied then order could have been
passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by not affording
an opportunity of hearing, the respondent no.2 - Commissioner committed
breach of principle of natural justice and on this sole ground the order passed
by the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner is unsustainable.
5] On a perusal of the material placed on record viz. the order
3 WP6949.15.odt
passed by the respondent no.1 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara and the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Divisional
Commissioner, impugned in the present petition, I find considerable merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent no.2
- Divisional Commissioner only refers to the order passed by the respondent
no.1 - Chief Executive Officer and by observing that the order passed by the
respondent no.1 is in accordance with the Rules, dismissed the appeal. The
respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner being a quasi-judicial authority
deciding the appeal, it was necessary for him to given an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner/appellant and without granting such an opportunity
of hearing the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner
is certainly in breach of the principles of natural justice and the same cannot
sustain. The writ petition therefore, needs to be partly allowed.
6] In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 - Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur, dated 29.09.2015 is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner with a
direction to decide the appeal presented by the petitioner afresh by giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass the the orders afresh as early
as possible and preferably within a period six months from the date of
appearance of the parties before him. The parties undertake to appear before
the respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner on 07.06.2016 and then
4 WP6949.15.odt
would follow the further directions of the respondent no.2 - Commissioner for
deciding the appeal. Needless to state that, in case the respondent no.2 -
Divisional Commissioner requires hearing of the respondent No.1 - Zilla
Pariashad, he may grant hearing to the respondent - Zilla Parishad or may
call for the record from the respondent no.1 - Chief Executive Officer.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The writ petition
is disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
