Keshav S/O Maroti Fulbandhe vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2341 Bom

                                                                      1                                                wp3988-05




                                                                                                                         
                                                                                         
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                           Writ Petition No.3988 of  2005




                                                                                        
    Keshav s/o Maroti Fulbandhe, 
    aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
    (Presently working as Police Constable
    (Buckle N. 420)}, Police Headquarter
    Bhandara, R/o New Police Line, No.6, 




                                                                     
    Bhandara (M.S.)                        ...                                                         ...                  Petitioner.


     
                 -Versus -
                                           
    1. State of Maharashtra,
       Through its Secretary, 
                                          
       Home Department, 
       Mantralaya, Mumbai. 

    2.  The Superintendent of Police,
        Bhandara District, Bhandara (M.S.)
        


    3.  The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
     



        Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, 
        through its Chairman.             ...                                                          ...                Respondents

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Autkar, h/f Mr. Dangre, counsel for petitioner. 





    Mrs. Joshi, AGP for  respondents.   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                         P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. 

DATE : 5th May, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Heard Advocate Autkar holding for advocate Dangre for petitioner

and learned AGP for respondents.

2. According to advocate Autkar, the judgment and order dated 6 th

March, 2003 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short

2 wp3988-05

MAT) in O.A. No.666/1992 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as MAT has

encroached upon jurisdiction of Competent Authority which was expected to

decide under Rule 71 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time,

Foreign Service and Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal)

Rules,s 1981 ( hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules).

3. Learned counsel states that without any departmental inquiry and

even finding by competent criminal court and only for registration of three

offences against petitioner, he came to be dismissed from service. In due

course of time, petitioner has been exonerated from one offence and other

two offences were compounded. MAT has found that dismissal is in breach

of principles of natural justice and therefore ordered his reinstatement

without back wages and gave employer liberty to hold departmental inquiry.

Learned counsel points out that accordingly petitioner has been reinstated on

10.4.2003 and no departmental inquiry has been held till date.

4. According to him, in this situation provisions of Rule 71 are

attracted and it is for competent authority to apply mind in terms of scheme

of that rule to find out entitlement of petitioner to full or partial back wages.

5. Learned AGP disputes this. She points out that Rule 71(1) itself

considers a provision which gives superimposing power to court. She further

points out that Rule 71 cannot be made binding on any court like MAT or

3 wp3988-05

other court which is statutorily empowered to decide such controversy.

6. Facts are not in dispute. Provision of Rule 71(1) itself stipulate

that it is subject to direction if any of the Court. Here, there is a direction of

MAT and MAT has found that petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without

back wages. The petitioner has not produced before MAT any affidavit to

show that during the period when he was out of employment, he could not

get any other service or was without any source of income. Denial of back

wages is not questioned before us on any other ground.

7. In this situation, we find the contention misconceived. No case is

made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Rule is, therefore,

discharged. Petition is disposed off. No costs.

                                     JUDGE                                JUDGE
    Hirekhan