Bombay High Court
Bharat Tatyarao Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 December, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp3830.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2006
Bharat Tatyarao Jadhav
age 41 years, occ. service
r/o Sharda kunj, C/o Shri Kachkure
Behind Telephone Bhavan,
Ajabnagar,
Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Co-operative Department
Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
Aurangabad
3. The Additional Collector AND
the Chairman,
Freedom Fighter Nomination
Verification Committee, Jalna. Respondents
Mr. A.S. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 14th DECEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Additional
Collector, Jalna on 13.02.2006 thereby cancelling nomination
issued in favour of petitioner by the wife of deceased freedom
{2}
wp3830.06.odt
fighter with a view that petitioner may claim benefits in securing
employment.
3. According to petitioner, one Kaduba Kolte was the freedom
fighter who died in the year 1986 and was succeeded by his wife
Smt. Ramkunwarbai Kaduba Kolte. Petitioner claims to be the son
of sister of deceased freedom fighter. Wife of the deceased freedom
fighter issued nomination in favour of petitioner which was duly
verified by the Collector. On the basis of verification issued by the
Collector, petitioner was offered employment in Co-operation
department in the year 1993. Respondent no. 3 on its own
enquired as regards authenticity and correctness of nomination
certificate issued in favour of petitioner and, relying upon the
report of enquiry, the Additional Collector, Jalna proceeded to
direct cancellation of nomination issued in favour of petitioner by
wife of the deceased freedom fighter. As a result of cancellation of
nomination issued in favour of petitioner, the department
proceeded to hold an enquiry against petitioner and directed
termination of his services.
4. Petitioner raised challenge to the order passed by the
department directing termination of his services by presenting
Original Application No. 182/2002 which came to be heard and
disposed of by the Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. The tribunal allowed
the original application tendered by petitioner and directed
quashment of the order passed by the employer on 02.03.2002
directing termination of services of petitioner. The tribunal granted
liberty to the respondents to take action as per law. The tribunal,
{3}
wp3830.06.odt
while disposing of original application has observed in paragraphs
11 to 13 as under :
11. The question for determination is as to
whether nomination which was the basis of the
applicant's employment was wrongly made and
whether the Collector, Jalna's report about the
deceased freedom fighter not having any sister at
all can be sustained in view of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.
12. We have not been shown any evidence
based on which the Collector, Jalna came to the
conclusion that the deceased freedom fighter
had no sister at all and hence could not have a
nephew. Even after the enquiry officer's report
was sent to the Collector, he gave a very cryptic
reply, which does not inspire confidence. We
have gone through the enquiry officer's report
and found that since the freedom fighter's widow
was indisposed and aged 80 years, her son
remained present and confirmed that the
applicant is his first cousin, as claimed. There
is no reason to disbelieve this evidence.
Similarly, there is an affidavit filed by the
brother of the deceased freedom fighter stating
that there were three sisters, which again has
gone unchallenged. Besides, there are
certificates from the Sarpanch - as of the
concerned villages in support of the applicant's
case.
13. On the other hand, the Collector's so-
called enquiry was conducted behind the back
of the applicant. No statement, recorded in the
enquiry, has been produced before the Tribunal
or was before the respondents when they took
the decision to accept the Collector's report. The
least that was expected from respondent no. 2
was to satisfy himself, that the Collector's report
was based on some reliable evidence by securing
a copy of the same, before discarding the
{4}
wp3830.06.odt
enquiry report of the District Enquiry Officer,
Aurangabad.
The tribunal has recorded clear finding that the conclusion
reached by the Enquiry Officer that the deceased freedom fighter
was not having any sister at all, cannot be sustained in view of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is also recorded by the
tribunal that enquiry has been conducted in respect of nomination
issued to the petitioner by wife of deceased freedom fighter without
observing principles of natural justice and as such, the
conclusions reached are not sustainable. The very basis for
issuing the order of termination was found to be shaky and as
such the tribunal proceeded to quash the order.
5. Petitioner contends that since the order passed by the
Additional Collector, Jalna, cancelling nomination issued in favour
of petitioner has not yet been set aside, he apprehends further
adverse action at the instance of the department. It is the
contention of petitioner that post decision of the tribunal, further
investigation was undertaken by the department and it was noticed
that nomination issued in favour of petitioner is valid.
6. It is clear from record that the Additional Collector, Jalna
while directing cancellation of nomination has not followed the
principles of natural justice and the order has been passed in
breach of the principles of natural justice. The Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, while dealing with the order of
termination based upon the order passed by the Additional
Collector, Jalna has concluded that observations of the Additional
Collector in the enquiry report that deceased freedom fighter was
{5}
wp3830.06.odt
not having any sister is found to be shaky and incorrect and as
such the very basis and foundation for reaching the conclusion by
the Additional Collector while passing adverse order against
petitioner is found to be unsustainable. In the circumstances, no
reliance can be placed by respondents on the communication
dated 13.02.2006 directing cancellation of nomination issued in
favour of petitioner since it is found to be in breach of observance
of principles of natural justice.
7. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute
in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
