Bombay High Court
Harichand Gopal Sharnagat vs State Of Mah & 2 Others on 10 May, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp54.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.54/2005
PETITIONER: Harichand s/o Gopal Sharnagat
Aged 41 years, Occu - Gramsewak, Panchayat
Samiti, Goregaon, Gram Panchayat Chopa,
Post Chopa, Tah. Goregaon, Distt. Gondiya
(M.S.).
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary, Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara (M.S.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.H. Gulhane, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 10.05.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara directing the
recovery of an amount of Rs.4,218/- from the petitioner and permanently
stopping his two increments. The petitioner also challenges the order of
wp54.05.odt
the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, dated 13.8.2013 upholding the
order passed by the Chief Executive Officer on 21.1.2003.
The petitioner was working as a Gram Sevak in
Grampanchayat, Chopa when he was granted the additional charge of the
post of Village Development Officer, Tumsar, as Shri Sonkusare, who was
working as the Village Development Officer at Tumsar, was absent from
duties. At the relevant time, the construction work of internal roads,
toilets etc. was being carried out in the Grampanchayat, Yerli/Zarli under
the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. The petitioner was required to make the
payments and maintain the accounts of Grampanchayat, Yerli/Zarli. At
the relevant time, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, levelling
the charges of being negligent in his duties, preparing false muster-sheet,
withdrawal of money for misappropriation, excess spending, producing
false vouchers and misappropriation of amount. A departmental enquiry
was conducted against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer held that the
charge of having misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,437/- was proved
against the petitioner. It was held that the Zilla Parishad had failed to
prove the other charges. After the culmination of the enquiry, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad sought to recover the amount of
Rs.4,218/- from the petitioner, in view of proof of the charge of
misappropriation and two increments of the petitioner were stopped. The
wp54.05.odt
order of the Chief Executive Officer was challenged by the petitioner
before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Additional
Commissioner, Nagpur by the impugned order, dated 13.8.2003 upheld
the order of the Chief Executive Officer. Both the orders are impugned in
the instant petition.
Shri Gulhane, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Authorities were not justified in imposing the penalty
of stoppage of two increments after recovering an amount of Rs.4,218/-
from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was not to be
blamed if his superiors and subordinates had not performed their duties
correctly. It is submitted that in the absence of Shri Sonkusare, the
petitioner was required to pay the necessary amount to the concerned
persons for the construction of the toilets, cattle-pond etc. It is submitted
that a sum of Rs.8,437/- could not have been directed to be recovered
from the petitioner and from the Ex-Secretary Shri Sonkusare. It is
submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is harsh and
the same is liable to be set aside.
Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the orders
passed by the Authorities. It is submitted that the findings recorded by
both the Authorities are pure findings of facts. It is submitted that the
wp54.05.odt
findings of facts may not be interfered in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
It is submitted that the principles of natural justice were followed while
conducting the departmental enquiry and the petitioner had participated
in the same. It is submitted that since the petitioner had misappropriated
a sum of Rs.8,437/- along with the Ex-Secretary, Shri Sonkusare, the
Authorities rightly directed that 50% of the said amount be recovered
from the petitioner and an order of stoppage of two increments be passed.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that
there is no scope for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction. The Enquiry Officer had granted a fair opportunity to
the petitioner to defend his case. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn by
the petitioner from the Bank of India on 5.7.2001 and the petitioner had
given a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the Village Development Officer
Shri Sonkusare. The Authorities found that the Enquiry Officer had clearly
held that the voucher in respect of the receipt of the amount of
Rs.70,000/- was not secured by the petitioner. The petitioner had made
expenses to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and had recorded the total expenses
of Rs.1,10,000/-, though the expenses for the construction work were
determined only at Rs.1,01,563/-. It was found that the petitioner had
showed an additional expenditure of Rs.8,437/- though the said amount
wp54.05.odt
was not extended for the construction work. In view of the aforesaid, the
Chief Executive Officer held that the petitioner was liable to repay a sum
of Rs.4,218/- and there should be a stoppage of two increments. The
Additional Commissioner rightly found that the punishment inflicted upon
the petitioner was not harsh. It was found that since the petitioner had
misappropriated a sum of Rs.8,437/-, the petitioner and Shri Sonkusare
were liable to repay the said amount to the Zilla Parishad.
Since the impugned orders appear to be just and proper, the
writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged.
JUDGE
Wadkar
