Ganesh Sitaram Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1417 Bom

                                        1                      86-WP-12340.odt


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  WRIT PETITION NO.12340 OF 2016

Ganesh s/o. Sitaram Koli,
Age : 50 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Salgara, Divdi,
Tq. Tuljapur, Osmanabad                             ..Petitioner

               Vs.

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
and ors.                                            ..Respondents

                         --
Mr.D.A.Mane, Advocate for petitioner

Mr.V.S.Basarkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
                         --

                                 CORAM :  S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                          SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : APRIL 03, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) :

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,

heard finally.

2. The petitioner had filed an Original

Application before the Maharashtra Administrative

2 86-WP-12340.odt

Tribunal challenging the order of termination

issued to him. The Tribunal allowed the said

proceedings and granted reinstatement, but did not

grant back wages and continuity in service.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits there was no reason for the Tribunal not

to grant continuity in service and the petitioner

is entitled for back wages also. The Tribunal has

not granted back wages on the ground that no such

prayer was made in the Original Application filed

by the petitioner.

4. The learned AGP submits that the

petitioner did not pray for continuity in service

and payment of back wages and therefore, the

Tribunal has not committed any illegality. He

submits that the Tribunal has taken a liberal

view.

5. We have gone through the impugned

judgment passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has

3 86-WP-12340.odt

observed that the respondents failed to prove the

charges leveled against the petitioner and the

order of dismissal is disproportionate. It appears

that the petitioner was absent from the duty for

some period. The Tribunal has declared the period

of absence of the petitioner as unauthorised

absence and maintained the suspension period as

suspension period.

6. Though it appears that prayer has not

been made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement

and continuity in service, the petitioner had

prayed for setting aside the order of termination.

The prayer for reinstatement would be implicit in

the said prayer. However, the Tribunal has found

that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is

disproportionate and denial of back wages would be

a sufficient punishment.

7. Considering the above, we pass the

following order :-

                                     4                        86-WP-12340.odt


(i)              The impugned judgment and order passed by 

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, to the

extent of setting aside the order of termination

so also Clause 3 of the operative part of the

order, is maintained.

(ii) However, the petitioner shall be granted

continuity in service with all consequential

benefits. The petitioner shall not be entitled for

back wages.

8. Rule is partly made absolute accordingly.

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

kbp