Bombay High Court
Manisha Sunil Patil vs Gram Panchayat Jalgaon Through ... on 22 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 907wp1553o17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1553 OF 2017
Manisha w/o Sunil Patil,
Age : 39 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Jargaon, Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Gram Panchayat,
Jargaon, Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon.
Through its Sarpanch.
2 Gram Sevak,
Gram Panchayat, Jargaon,
Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon.
3 Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Pachora,
Taluka Pachora,
District Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Patil Sandesh R.
Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri Dhobale Nitin L.
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri Sharma Vijay.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 22nd August, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
*2* 907wp1553o17
consent of the parties.
2 While issuing notice on 08.02.2017, I had recorded the
submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner in paragraphs 1 and
2 as under:-
"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders of
termination dated 18.04.2016 and rejection of her
Appeal dated 18.10.2016. Specific allegations have
been leveled upon her and by virtue of a resolution
passed by the Gram Panchayat, referring to the
allegations, she has been terminated from service.
2. I find that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Dipti Prakash Banerjee versus Satyandra Nath Bose
[(1993) 3 SCC 90] and the judgment of this Court in
the matter of Deputy Chief Executive Officer versus
Ratan Eknath Gund [2015 (2) M.L.J. 616]."
3 Shri Dhobale, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ Gram Panchayat and Gram Sevak and Shri
Sharma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3/ BDO,
have strenuously supported the impugned orders. It is strenuously
canvassed that the Petitioner is guilty of having manufactured bogus
documents. Since it came to light, the show cause notice was issued to
her on 19.03.2016. After her explanation was found to be unsatisfactory,
the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution on 16.04.2016 and dismissed
the service of the Petitioner on 18.04.2016. Since grave and serious
charges were levelled upon the Petitioner, the Respondents have rightly
*3* 907wp1553o17
issued the notice to her and after considering her explanation, have
dismissed her service by way of punishment.
4 This Court, in the matter of Ratan Eknath Gund (supra), has
concluded that permanent employees of the Gram Panchayat/ Zilla
Parishad cannot be dismissed from services on the ground of misconduct,
without conducting an enquiry.
5 The Petitioner, in the instant case, is a permanent employee
having worked from 02.02.2007 till her dismissal on 18.04.2016. Having
put in nine years of service, the Respondents cannot be justified in
dismissing her services by issuing a notice and without conducting a
departmental enquiry to prove the serious charges levelled upon her.
6 It was open to the Respondents to place the Petitioner under
suspension pending the disciplinary enquiry and conduct an enquiry to
prove the charges. The legal requirement was that the Petitioner would
have been entitled to suspension allowances as per the Rules.
7 In the light of the above, the impugned order dated
18.10.2016 dismissing the First Department Appeal of the Petitioner and
her dismissal order dated 16.04.2016 effective from 18.04.2016, cannot
be sustained.
8 The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of the Chief
Executive Officer, Krishna District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and
another vs. K. Hanumantha Rao and another, 2017 (2) SCC 528 : 2017 (4)
*4* 907wp1553o17
Mh.L.J. 484, has concluded that even when it comes to the issue of
quantum of punishment, the matter deserves to be remanded to the
disciplinary authority for deciding appropriate quantum of punishment.
9 In the instant case, the order of dismissal has been passed
without even conducting a departmental enquiry and as such, the right of
the employer to follow the law as is laid down in the matter of Ratan
Eknath Gund (supra) cannot be curtailed. By applying the doctrine of
relation-back and keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Vidya Vikas Mandal and another
vs. Education Officer and another, 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 801 (SC), the Petitioner
can be treated as being under suspension w.e.f. 18.04.2016, rather than
reinstating her keeping in view that the charges levelled upon her are
grave and serious in nature. She would be entitled for suspension
allowance as per the Rules considering the law laid down in Ratan Eknath
Gund (supra).
10 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 18.10.2016 is quashed and set aside and the
order of dismissal dated 18.04.2016 is converted into an order of
suspension keeping in view that the Employer would conduct a
departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against the Petitioner by
issuing a formal charge-sheet.
*5* 907wp1553o17
11 Considering the above, the Petitioner shall be treated as being
under suspension w.e.f. 18.04.2016. Respondent No.1/ Gram Panchayat
shall pay the arrears of suspension allowance to the Petitioner from
18.04.2016 within a period of EIGHT WEEKS from today and shall
continue to pay the suspension allowance as per the Rules in the light of
the law laid down in Ratan Eknath Gund (supra) till the departmental
enquiry is concluded in an order to be passed by Respondent No.1/
Employer.
12 Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to issue the charge sheet
to the Petitioner within THREE WEEKS from today and after obtaining the
explanation from the Petitioner, it may proceed to conduct a domestic
enquiry, if necessary, and in accordance with law.
13 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
