Bombay High Court
Anil Pravinchandra Pandya vs State Of Mah.And Another on 3 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp3836.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3836 OF 2002
Anil Pravinchandra Pandya,
aged about 54 years,
Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) G.S.D.A,
R/o. 168, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur.... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Water Conservation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. The Director of Groundwater Survey
and Development Agency (GSDA),
Bhujal Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune, through its Director. ...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.P.Marpakwar, counsel for Petitioner
Shri N.S.Rao, AGP for Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
rd
DATE : 3 JULY, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The challenge in this petition is to the judgment
and order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dismissing
Original Application No. 5 of 1993 filed by the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:37 :::
2 wp3836.02.odt
challenging the order dated 07.11.1990, imposing the
punishment of withholding of one increment for two years
with cumulative effect and also the order dated 06.04.1992
treating the period of suspension as 'period of suspension for
the purposes of payment of salary during the said period'.
2] An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner
in respect of six charges, some of them includes submission
of false bills, keeping the bills pending for longer period etc.
Out of these six charges, according to the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, charge Nos. 1 and 2 have been held
to be partly proved by the Enquiry Officer and therefore,
upholding the punishment imposed, the Original Application
has been dismissed. Paragraphs Nos. 15 and 16 of the
judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal being relevant are reproduced below;
"15. I then went through the factual aspect of the matter. I
found to have been observed and held by the Enquiry Officer
that, financial irregularities were committed by the applicant,
and they were sufficiently established. It was, as such, a case
of sufficient evidence against the applicant. It would be most
unjust for this Tribunal to sit in appeal over the said order and
to re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, and to record
the contrary findings. When there is a case of some
evidence, as per the rule of law, the Tribunal shall be slow to
interfere in such order.
16. After making the necessary assessment of the matter and
after appreciating it, I have to come to the conclusion that, the
applicant has no case to challenge the impugned orders. The
O.A deserves to be dismissed. I, therefore, proceed to pass
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:37 :::
3 wp3836.02.odt
the following order :-
O R D E R
The present O.A is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs".
3] It is urged by Shri Marpakwar, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is an error
apparent on the face of record in recording the finding by the
Tribunal that the financial irregularities were committed by the
applicant and those were established. According to him, the
enquiry report itself shows that the charges have not been
established and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an
error in holding that it was required to re-appreciate the
evidence which is not the function of the Tribunal.
4] Charge No.1 states that the petitioner while
working as Deputy Engineer in Groundwater Survey and
Development Agency, he has submitted 78 doubtful bills of
Rs.75,291.20 in respect of the purchases and repairs of the
vehicles during the period from October, 1984 to June, 1985.
The Enquiry Officer records a specific finding in Paragraph
No.32 that the bills submitted were not false, bogus or
doubtful and there is no evidence led to establish such
4 wp3836.02.odt
charge. It also holds that there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner intentionally with a view to deceit the
Department produced the bogus bills. The Enquiry Officer,
however, found that there was irregularity in maintenance of
record. However, we do not find that any such charge was
framed against the petitioner. The Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in
holding that such charge was proved against the petitioner.
5] The Charge No.2 which is also alleged to be
partly proved is in respect of unauthorized purchases of
electric pumps and coolers costing Rs. 82,411/- from the
unauthorized local dealers and 18 bills were kept pending,
which is the deceit practiced upon the Zilla Parishad. The
Enquiry Officer records a specific finding that the charge of
producing false bills is not established and also there is
nothing on record to show that the petitioner has played
fraud. The Enquiry Officer, however, holds that there was
irregularity in maintenance of record. However, we do not
find any such charge was framed or levelled on the petitioner.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, therefore,
committed an error in holding that such charge was proved.
5 wp3836.02.odt
6] In view of above, we are of the view that the
order of punishment dated 07.11.1990 passed against the
petitioner imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment
for two years with cumulative effect cannot be sustained.
Similarly, the order dated 06.04.1992 passed treating the
period of suspension as the 'period of suspension for the
purposes of payment of salary' also cannot be sustained.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has committed an
error in dismissing the Original Application No.5 of 1993.
Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all the
benefits.
7] In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash
and set aside the order 07.11.1990 imposing punishment
upon the petitioner along with the order dated 06.04.1992
treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as the
'period of suspension'. We also quash and set aside the
order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner is restored to the
position and he shall be entitled to all the consequential
benefits including the payment of arrears of increment and
6 wp3836.02.odt
that of salary. The petitioner be paid all his dues within a
period of four months from the date of communication of the
order.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
