Bombay High Court
Kisan Son Of Bhimrao Gajare vs The High Court Of Judicature At ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3921.03.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3921/2003
PETITIONER: Kisan son of Bhimrao Gajare
Aged about 50 years, Occu. : Service,
r/o Plot No.35, "Krushna-Kanhaiyya"
Colony, Bhilkheda, Karanja (Lad),
Tahsil : Karanja, District : Washim.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay
through its Registrar, High Court,
Appellate Side, Mumbai.
2. The Disciplinary Authority and
District & Sessions Judge, Akola.
3. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Law & Judiciary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Radhika Bajaj, Adv. for respondent nos.1 & 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the
appellate authority, dated 20.12.2002 modifying the order of the
Disciplinary Authority and District and Sessions Judge, Akola dated
31.12.2001 and setting aside the order of penalty of removal of the
wp3921.03.odt
petitioner from service and imposing the punishment of stoppage of three
increments with cumulative effect.
Since in the year 1990, the petitioner, was working as a
Stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja (Lad).
According to the petitioner, there was no complaint against the petitioner
in respect of his service from 1990 till May 1998, when the Judge Shri
N.J. Bhoyar joined at Karanja (Lad) as Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is
the case of the petitioner that the concerned Judge asked the petitioner to
do some of his personal duties but since the petitioner did not attend the
rest-house, where the Judge was stationed, the said Judge started issuing
memos against the petitioner for one reason or the other. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner was served with the chargesheet on 27.8.1998
wherein several charges were levelled against the petitioner. According to
the charges, the petitioner, while working as a Stenographer was not
maintaining devotion to his duties and was not obeying the orders of the
Presiding Officer. According to the chargesheet, the petitioner had
absented from duty on 4.6.1998 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. without
seeking the leave and the Presiding Officer could not render the judgment
in the civil suit due to the absence of the petitioner in the Court. It was
alleged that the petitioner was behaving with the Presiding Officer very
rudely and the petitioner further absented himself from duty for one hour
wp3921.03.odt
on 14.7.1998 without prior permission and the Presiding Officer - Judge
was not able to render the orders and the judgments, in view of his
absence. When the Presiding Officer orally asked the petitioner to give his
explanation, the petitioner replied in an arrogant manner that the
Presiding Officer - Judge should first give a notice in writing. An
allegation was levelled that the petitioner arrogantly told the Presiding
Officer - Judge that his duties would commence only from 11:00 a.m. in
the morning and therefore, the Presiding Officer should not ask about the
transcription at 10:35 a.m. An allegation was levelled that on 21.7.1998
the petitioner refused to type the depositions of the witnesses on the
ground that it is not his duty to do so. An allegation was also levelled that
the petitioner did not reply the notice issued by the Presiding Officer to
him. It was further mentioned in the chargesheet that on 11.6.1998 the
petitioner disobeyed the orders of another Presiding Officer Shri V.B.
Shrikhande, who was posted as a Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at
Karanja (Lad) and refused to take the dictation. Lastly, an allegation was
levelled that the petitioner had threatened the Presiding Officer vide reply
dated 27.7.1998 that an action would be initiated by him against the
Presiding Officer under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Though time and again the petitioner was
asked by the Enquiry Officer to submit his written statement, the
wp3921.03.odt
petitioner refused to tender the written statement on the ground that he
was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents. The
petitioner conceded before the Enquiry Officer that he had received the
documents with the chargesheet as per the list of annexures and also that
he had taken the inspection of certain documents on which the Presenting
Officer had not relied upon. The enquiry proceedings were adjourned
from time to time but the petitioner did not participate in the same and
sought adjournment of the proceedings for cross-examination of the
witnesses of the Presenting Officer. The evidence was recorded ex parte as
the petitioner was absent and had sent an application for adjournment of
the enquiry proceedings on a reason that was not acceptable. Since the
petitioner refused to participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, on an
appreciation of the material on record, specially the evidence of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer, held that the
petitioner had grossly misconducted himself as he was guilty of dereliction
of duties, disobedience or insubordination and the acts committed by the
petitioner were not befitting the Government servant. The enquiry report
was served on the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority and District
and Sessions Judge, Akola passed the order of removal of the petitioner
from the service w.e.f. 31.12.2001. The petitioner challenged the said
order in a departmental appeal. The appeal was partly allowed and
wp3921.03.odt
though the appellate authority held that the charges were duly proved
against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to
defend the charges, the appellate authority reduced the punishment for
removal to the punishment of stoppage of three increments with
cumulative effect after observing that the punishment of removal from
service was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct that was
proved. The petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority
dated 20.12.2002 in the instant petition.
Shri Gaikwad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised
only one ground for challenging the impugned order. It is submitted that
the petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity to defend the charges,
inasmuch as the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner
and the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer. It is submitted
that though the petitioner had sought for time to cross-examine the
witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry
Officer did not grant an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the
witnesses. It is submitted that since the relevant documents were not
supplied to the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Shri Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents has supported the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is
wp3921.03.odt
submitted that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct by
disobeying the orders of the Presiding Officer and leaving the Court
premises when the Presiding Officer - Judge was in the Court on duty. It
is submitted that the aforesaid acts on the part of the petitioner are
proved in the departmental enquiry. It is stated that proper opportunity
was granted to the petitioner to defend the charges, inasmuch as, all the
relevant documents on which the respondents relied were supplied to the
petitioner and the petitioner was asked to take an inspection of the other
documents though the documents were not relevant for the enquiry and
were merely the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja
in various proceedings. It is submitted that it is clear from the enquiry
report that the petitioner had admitted before the Enquiry Officer that
the copies of all the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner
along with the chargesheet as per the list of annexures and he had also
taken the inspection of certain documents with the permission of the
Disciplinary Authority. It is stated that the petitioner could not have
insisted for supplying the copies of the depositions in various cases as
those documents were not relevant for the purpose of the enquiry. It is
stated that the petitioner had never requested for any document that had
relevance with the enquiry and it is observed by the Enquiry Officer that it
is not the case of the petitioner that any relevant document was not
wp3921.03.odt
supplied to him. It is stated that the petitioner had time and again
absented himself in the enquiry proceedings and it is clear from the
enquiry report that the petitioner did not desire to defend the charges and
only desired that the enquiry proceedings should be delayed. It is stated
that it is apparent from the enquiry report that the petitioner appeared on
a couple of dates of hearing and went away as soon as his applications for
staying the proceedings and adjourning the matter were rejected. It is
stated that since the petitioner was not desirous of participating in the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rightly proceeded to complete the enquiry by
considering the evidence tendered by the witnesses examined by the
Presenting Officer.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the enquiry report as also the documents annexed to the writ
petition, it appears that the petitioner was granted a fair opportunity to
defend the charges during the enquiry. Time and again, time was granted
to the petitioner to file the written statement but the petitioner refused to
file the same solely on the ground that the copies of certain documents
were not supplied to him. We have perused the application made by the
petitioner for supplying the documents mentioned in the application.
Several documents mentioned in the application made by the petitioner
cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of the enquiry against the
wp3921.03.odt
petitioner. The petitioner was served with the statements of the witnesses
that were recorded during the preliminary enquiry and all the other
relevant documents, including the notice, reply and the copies of memos
were supplied the petitioner. The respondents rightly did not supply the
copies of the depositions of the witnesses in some of the cases conducted
by the Presiding Officer - Judge in the Courts as they were not relevant
for the purpose of the enquiry. The petitioner was however permitted by
the respondents to inspect the said deposition and other documents
mentioned in the application though they were not relevant. It is apparent
from a reading of the enquiry report and on a perusal of the other
documents annexed to the writ petition that though the petitioner was
granted ample opportunity, the petitioner was not ready to avail the same
and that he only desired that the enquiry should be protracted. The
petitioner did not file the written statement despite grant of three chances
and also did not cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the
Presenting Officer despite the grant of opportunity. The petitioner had
sought for the stay of the enquiry proceedings and as soon as the stay
application was rejected, the petitioner left and on the next date of the
enquiry, sent an application for adjournment of the enquiry through his
son that was rightly not accepted by the Enquiry Officer as the reason
stated in the application was not acceptable. On a reading of the enquiry
wp3921.03.odt
report and the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that the
petitioner was not interested in participating in the enquiry and defending
the charges levelled against him and was making a grievance in respect of
the non-supply of the documents by the Disciplinary Authority, though
the copies of the relevant documents were supplied to him and he was
permitted to take the inspection of the some documents, though they
were not relevant. Since the appellate authority rightly found that the
petitioner was granted a fair opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry,
the appellate authority refused to interfere with the findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer. We find that the charges proved against the
petitioner are grave and serious and the appellate authority has taken an
extremely lenient view in the matter to reduce the punishment from
removal of the petitioner from service to the punishment of withholding
of his three increments with cumulative effect. There is no scope for
interference with the order of the appellate authority, in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
