Prakash Bhagwanrao Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6474 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO.6605 OF 2016

    Prakash Bhagwanrao Chavan,
    Age-   years, Occu-Service,




                                                 
    R/o Aadgaon (Ranjebua),
    Tq.Vasmat, Dist.Hingoli                            --       PETITIONER

    VERSUS




                                        
    1.     The State of Maharashtra,
           Through Minister of Co-operation, 
                              
           Marketing and Textile and Public 
           Works Department,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
                             
    2.     The Director of 
           Marketing, Maharashtra State,
           Pune,
      


    3.     The District Deputy Registrar,
           Co-op Societies, Hingoli,
   



    4.     The Assistant Registrar,
           Co-operative Societies, Aundha (Nagnath),
           Dist.Hingoli, 





    5.     The Administrator,
           Agricultural Produce Market Committee
           Jawla Bazar,
           Tq.Aundha, Dist.Hingoli,





    6.     Agricultural Produce Market Committee 
           Jawla Bazar, 
           Tq.Aundha (Nagnath) Dist.Hingoli,

    7.     Gajanan Annasaheb Chavan,
           Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,
           R/o Berula, Tq.Aundha (Nagnath),
           Dist.Hingoli,                               -- RESPONDENTS

khs/NOV.2016/6605-d

Mr.V.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Mr.C.V.Bodkhe h/f Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.7.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 16/11/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31/05/2016

passed by the Hon'ble Minister and as a consequence of which the

revision application filed by the petitioner for challenging his

termination dated 07/11/2014 has been rejected.

3. The petitioner has raised primarily two grounds for supporting

his challenge to his termination. Firstly, that Rule 103 of the

Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and

Regulation) Rules, 1967 has not been complied with and secondly,

respondent No.7 Gajanan Annashaeb Chavan has been reinstated

under the orders of the Hon'ble Minister.

4. It is strenuously submitted by the learned Advocate for the

khs/NOV.2016/6605-d

petitioner that unless an opportunity of hearing in tune with Rule

103 was not afforded to the petitioner, the termination is rendered

illegal and unsustainable. Neither any show cause notice was served

upon him, nor was he served with a charge sheet. Article 311 of the

Constitution of India protects the petitioner against such unlawful

termination.

5.

The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4

submits that the petitioner has worked for only 2 months and 10

days. No procedure for selection and appointment was followed.

Being the son of a Director of the A.P.M.C., the petitioner was given a

back door entry and upon noticing the same, the Hon'ble Minister

has rightly rejected his revision application.

6. Mr.Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No.7 submits that there is no comparison or parity in

between the petitioner and respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 has

been working from 13/10/2015 onwards. His appointment is

sustained and he has therefore been continued in employment. The

District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has approved the

appointment of respondent No.7. These factors are missing in the

case of the petitioner.

khs/NOV.2016/6605-d

7. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has canvassed

on the same lines.

8. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, I

find that Rule 103 has to be read in consonance with Rule 102,

which provides for penalties. Rule 103 is with regard to the dismissal

or removal or reduction of an employee in rank pursuant to

conducting an enquiry. Though the petitioner has been removed

from service, it is not on account of any charge of mis conduct. Rule

103 was considered, in the light of article 311 in the matter of

Pramod Rajaram Chavan Vs.A.P.M.C. 1984(1) BCR, 50 by the

Division bench of this Court and it was concluded that the rigours

and conditions of employment under Article 311 cannot be compared

with Rule 103.

9. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner having worked for

only 2 months and 10 days and considering the fact that no

procedure for recruitment and appointment in his case was followed,

it cannot be said that the petitioner has a right crystallized in law.

So also, the factors in relation to the appointment of respondent No.7

being different, no parity can be drawn between the petitioner and

respondent No.7.

khs/NOV.2016/6605-d

10. Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned order

passed by the Hon'ble Minister could be termed as being perverse or

erroneous. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/NOV.2016/6605-d