Bombay High Court
Laxman S/O Vithoba Pawar vs Forest Devp. Corporation Of Maha. ... on 26 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2604WP5417.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5417 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Laxman S/o Vithoba pawar, Aged 57 years,
Occupation- Service, as Forester, r/o
Jodmoha, Tal.- Kalamb, Dist. - Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Limited, A Government of
Maharashtra Undertaking, having its office
at Rawel Plaza, Plot No.12, Kadbi Chowk,
Kamptee Road, Nagpur - 440 004 through
its Chairman, Nagpur, Tahsil and District
Nagpur.
2. The Managing Director, Forest Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, A
Government of Maharashtra Undertaking,
having its office at Rawel Plaza, Plot No.12,
Kadbi Chowk, Kamptee Road, Nagpur - 440
004. The Appellate Authority.
3. The Regional Manager, Ja, Kha, Ka. &
Vanikaran Region, Nagpur Rawel Plaza, Plot
No.12, Kadbi Chowk, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur.
4. The Divisional Manager, Forests Project
Division, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District,
Yavatmal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Neeta Jog, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.I.L.Bodade and Mr.G.G.Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 26.04.2017
2604WP5417.13-Judgment 2/5
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the orders of the
disciplinary and the appellant authority of the respondent, Forest
Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited holding that the two
increments of the petitioner should be withheld as the charge levelled
against the petitioner in respect of signing the attendance sheet of
labourers without visiting the work site, was proved.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a guard in the year
1976 and in 2006, while he was working as forester in Lalkhed region,
he was charge-sheeted. According to the respondents, the charge
against the petitioner was that he had wrongfully signed the attendance
register of labourers without visiting the work site on 30.12.2004 and
31.12.2004. According to the respondents, the petitioner had
committed illegalities in the work of the Forest Development
Corporation by falsely signing the attendance sheet without visiting the
site. The petitioner had denied the charge and had participated in the
disciplinary enquiry. The Education Officer, however, held that the
charge levelled against the petitioner was technically proved. On the
basis of the findings of the Education Officer, the disciplinary authority
withheld two increments of the petitioner with permanent effect. Being
aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner
2604WP5417.13-Judgment 3/5
challenged the said order in a departmental appeal. The appeal filed by
the petitioner was, however, dismissed. The petitioner has challenged
the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority in this petition.
3. Mrs.Jog, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
the disciplinary authority was not justified in imposing the punishment
of withholding two increments of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner had visited the site where the labourers were working on
30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 and only after verification of the fact that
the labourers had worked, the attendance register was signed by him.
It is stated that the only charge levelled against the petitioner was that
without attending the site where the labourers were working, the
petitioner had falsely signed on the attendance register. It is submitted
that not only was the petitioner present on the site where the labourers
were working, but this fact is also stated by each of the witnesses that
were examined on behalf of the respondent-department in the
departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry officer however
did not consider this material aspect of the matter before holding that
the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. It is submitted
that the charge against the petitioner was not that he had either
manipulated the attendance register or that he had falsely stated the
names of the labourers that had not worked, but the charge was only in
regard to the signing of the attendance register without attending the
2604WP5417.13-Judgment 4/5
site. It is submitted that the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate
authority are liable to be set aside in the circumstances of the case.
4. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent, has
supported the orders of the authorities. It is submitted that since the
enquiry is not vitiated and the charge is held to be proved, the
petitioner was rightly punished by the disciplinary authority. It is
submitted that the petition filed by Prakash Moratkar, who was also
charge-sheeted at the relevant time is dismissed by this court. The
learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
case of the petitioner is entirely different from the case of Prakash
Moratkar whose writ petition was dismissed by this court by the
judgment dated 10/02/2017. The charge levelled against the petitioner
in this case was just like the charge against the Prakash Moratkar in that
case that without attending the site where the labourers were working,
the petitioner and Shri Prakash Moratkar had signed the attendance
register. In the case of Prakash Moratkar, Prakash Moratkar had clearly
admitted that he had not visited the work site, but he had signed the
attendance register. Such is not the case of the petitioner. Here, the
petitioner had seriously disputed that he had not attended the work
site. In fact, it was the clear assertion of the petitioner that he had
2604WP5417.13-Judgment 5/5
attended the work site. The witnesses examined on behalf of the
respondents clearly stated in the enquiry that the petitioner had
attended the work site. If the petitioner had attended the work site on
30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004, it cannot be said that the charge levelled
against the petitioner could be proved. The charge levelled against the
petitioner was not in respect of falsely showing the names of some
labourers, who had not worked on the work site, but the charge was
that the petitioner had not attended the work site, but had still signed
the attendance register. Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the
respondents had clearly stated that the petitioner had attended the
work site, the findings of the enquiry officer that the charge levelled
against the petitioner is proved are vitiated and as a consequence of
that, the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority are liable
to be set aside.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority are
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
