Bombay High Court
Lahu Raosaheb Sangle vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 October, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 2423.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2015
Lahu S/o Raosaheb Sangle,
Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Prison Officer,
R/o Officer Quarters, A-Building,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Director General
of Police, Old Central Building,
02nd Floor, Pune - 1.
3. The Deputy Inspector General Prison,
Central Region, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Aurangabad,
Tal and Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents
Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 07TH OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
2 wp 2423.15
parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner is working with the respondent No. 4 as
Prison Officer. The petitioner is imposed a minor penalty of
stoppage of one increment vide order dated 02.12.2013. The
appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The petitioner
approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short
"Tribunal") by filing Original Application No. 667 of 2014. The
original application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present writ
petition.
3. Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the enquiry is not conducted as is required under
the Rules. Even for minor penalty, the procedure of enquiry is
required to be followed. The learned counsel submits that, as on
the date, when cost was imposed by this Court, the petitioner
was not incharge of Court working and he was allotted other
work. The said aspect has not been considered by the authority.
The Departmental Enquiry has not been conducted in free and
fair manner. The explanation given by the petitioner is not
considered. The petitioner had asked for time pursuant to show
cause notice. The same was also not granted. The learned
counsel submits that, even personal hearing was not given. The
learned counsel further submits that, the evidence also was not
recorded. The disciplinary proceeding is never conducted. The
Tribunal failed to consider said aspect. The learned counsel
3 wp 2423.15
submits that, initially on 08th July, 2013 the petitioner was
instructed to look after Court cases. However, the petitioner
because of his ill health was on leave from 04.09.2013 to
14.09.2013. On 15th September, 2013 the petitioner was given
charge of other work and not the Court work. The order imposing
cost for non filing of affidavit by the Court in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 595 of 2013 was passed on 19th September, 2013,
when the petitioner was not incharge of the said matter. The
said aspect needs to be considered.
4. Mr. Virdhe, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that, the penalty imposed is a minor penalty. Show
cause notice was given. For two months, the petitioner did not
file any reply and thereafter punishment is imposed. Because of
the negligence of the petitioner, the authority had to tender
unconditional apology before the Court and thereafter the order
of cost was withdrawn. According to the learned A. G. P. the
proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Even
appellate authority has considered the record. The Tribunal has
rightly considered the negligence on the part of the petitioner.
No illegality has been committed by the authorities and the
Tribunal while imposing punishment upon the petitioner.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for respective parties.
6. This Court naturally would be too slow in interfering with
4 wp 2423.15
the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed by the
authority. This Court certainly would not sit as an appellate
authority over the punishment imposed by the authority in the
disciplinary proceedings. This Court would only consider the
procedure having been followed, whether the order of
punishment is disproportionate to the allegations made, or that
relevant aspect is not considered.
7. The allegation against the petitioner was about not
attending the Court proceedings diligently. Because of his
negligence, affidavit was not filed and cost of Rs. 5,000/- was
imposed upon the respondents by the Court. The said order
imposing cost was subsequently withdrawn by the Court. As
such, no financial loss was caused to the respondents.
8. The petitioner was entrusted with the Court matter in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 595 of 2013 on 08th July, 2013.
Thereafter for three/four dates the affidavit was not filed. The
petitioner has come with a positive assertion before the appellate
authority, so also before the Tribunal that from 04th September,
2013 till 14th September, 2013, the petitioner was on leave and
the leave was sanctioned and on 15th September, 2013, the
petitioner was given another charge and not the Court matters.
Neither the Tribunal, nor the Appellate Authority had dealt with
said aspect of the matter. If the petitioner was given some other
charge, then certainly it was not expected that, the petitioner
5 wp 2423.15
would attend the Court case. So also from 04th September, 2013
to 14th September, 2013 the petitioner was on leave. The said
fact is not controverted by respondents. The order imposing cost
has been passed on 19th September, 2013. However, on 15th
September, 2013, the petitioner was given another charge. The
said aspect does not appear to have been dealt with by the
authority, nor by the Tribunal and said aspect though specifically
pleaded is not controverted or denied by respondents.
9.
Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter that, at the
time when cost was imposed, the petitioner was not incharge of
the matter, but was given charge to look after open, after
barrack, high security division, separate division, hospital
division and kitchen, so also his paid leave was sanctioned from
04.09.2013 to 14.09.2013, it would be inappropriate to hold
petitioner guilty.
10. In the light of the above, the punishment imposed of
stoppage of one increment is set aside. All the impugned orders
are quashed and set aside.
Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Oct. 16
