Bombay High Court
Rajendra Shriram Bhujbal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 August, 2017
Bench: Shantanu S. Kemkar
WP 9346/16
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9346/2016
Rajendra s/o Shriram Bhujbal,
age 33 yrs., occu.nil
r/o Shelsur Tq.Chikhli
Dist.Buldhana.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary to the
Village Development, Bandhkam
Bhavan Building, Ground Floor,
25-Marzban Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 001.
2] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna. Dist.Jalna.
3] The Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan.
Dist.Jalna.
4]
The Head Master,
Zilla Parishad Primary School,
Lonkarwadi Tq.Bhokardan
Dist.Jalna.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri Swapnil D. Tawshikar, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.M.A. Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri Vaibhav Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to
4.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:57:01 :::
WP 9346/16
- 2 -
CORAM: SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE: 09.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shantanu S. Kemkar, J.):
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up
for final disposal.
2] The petitioner was appointed on the post of
Shikshan Sevak vide order dated 12.7.2010 (Exhibit A)
issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Jalna.
3] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Jalna exercising his powers under Section 95 of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,
1961 (for short "the Act of 1961") read with Rule 3 of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1967 (for short, the Rules of 1967), and
Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short,
the Rules of 1964), terminated the petitioner's services
vide order dated 24.7.2013 (Exhibit B) on the ground
WP 9346/16
- 3 -
that an offence u/s 306, 304-B, 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code has been registered against him and for
that, he was taken in custody and remained in custody
from 19.2.2013 to 12.4.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the
said termination order, the petitioner has filed this
petition.
4] According to the petitioner, before passing the
impugned stigmatic termination order, no show cause
notice, no opportunity of hearing and no departmental
enquiry was held and as such the impugned order is
violative of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964. It is also the
case of the petitioner that reliance of the respondents
on Condition No.3 of the order of appointment is
misconceived as the alleged offences mentioned in the
impugned termination order do not come within the purview
of mis-behaviour or mis-conduct committed by the
petitioner during the course of his employment. In the
circumstances, according to the petitioner, the impugned
order, being ex-facie illegal, the same is liable to be
set aside.
5] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.2 to 4 has justified the impugned order
WP 9346/16
- 4 -
and has stated that since the criminal case was
registered against the petitioner, for which he was
arrested and remained in custody from 19.2.2013 to
12.4.2013, his services have rightly been terminated.
6] We have considered the rival contentions and
have gone through the pleadings.
7] Rule 3 of the Rules of 1967 provides that every
Parishad servant shall at all times maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty. Rule 3 of the Rules of
1964 deals with suspension of servant of the Zilla
Parishad. It is not in dispute that the alleged criminal
case was unconnected with the petitioner's duty. The
alleged offences were not committed during the course of
his employment. In the circumstances, invocation of the
powers under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1967, appears to be
wholly misconceived. Similar is the position of invoking
powers under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964. By the
impugned order, the petitioner has not been put under
suspension, but his services have been terminated.
8] It is clear that before imposition of major
penalty of termination / cancellation of appointment, no
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and no inquiry
WP 9346/16
- 5 -
was conducted as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules of
1964. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the
law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Prakash Khushalrao Dabhade v. Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad & others reported in 2000 (2) ALL MR 545,
squarely applies to the facts of the present case, in
which the Division Bench in paragraph no.14 has held as
under:-
"14. Now, it is well settled law that even a
temporary Government servant cannot be removed
from service without holding departmental
enquiry, if the complaint is there regarding
misbehaviour or misconduct, and without giving
him an opportunity to defend himself as per the
rules prescribed for the departmental enquiries."
9] Thus, having not held the departmental enquiry
as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964 before
imposing the penalty of termination from services of the
petitioner, the impugned order passed by the respondent
no.2 cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the reason for
the termination cannot be termed as mis-behaviour or
misconduct committed during the course of employment.
10] We have also been informed by the learned
WP 9346/16
- 6 -
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been
acquitted in the criminal case in question by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case
No.95/2013 vide judgment dated 31.5.2017. In view of
this additional fact also, we are of the view that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11] In the result, we quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 24.7.2013 (Exhibit B) passed by the
respondent no.2.
12] The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner within a period of two weeks and pay him
consequential monetary benefits within a period of six
months.
13] Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
ndk/c98171.doc
