The Inspector General Of ... vs Shri. Subhash Babu Patekar
2017 Latest Caselaw 4896 Bom

Rane                              * 1/5 *              WP-5501-2016
                                                           21.7.2017

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2016



1. The Inspector General of Registration
and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra
State, Pune

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through
the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032.                     ....Petitioners
                               (Original Respondents)



         V/s.



Shri. Subhash Babu Patekar
Occ-Retired, R/at-2361, New
Modikhana Camp, Pune                             .....Respondent
                                            (Original Applicant)



                          -------
Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for the State, petitioner.

Mr. Bhushan                A.   Bandiwadekar,     Advocate           for      the
respondent.




::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:47:22 :::
 Rane                               * 2/5 *              WP-5501-2016
                                                            21.7.2017

                  CORAM :-             SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &

                                       SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :- 21 ST JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) :

1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the Learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. On 11th September, 2007 chargesheet was

served by the petitioner on the respondent. The

respondent retired on superannuation on 31 st January,

2012. In respect of disciplinary proceedings, the

respondent approached Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal by filing an Original Application No.119 of 2013.

By Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 2015 the

Tribunal disposed of the Original Application. The

operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads thus :

 Rane                             * 3/5 *             WP-5501-2016
                                                         21.7.2017

"In view of the foregoing, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction that D.E. pending against the applicant be concluded by 31.12.2015 and in the event the said deadline is not met the charge sheet shall stand quashed ipso facto"

. For challenging the said order, present petition has

been filed. The presentation form shows that, this

petition was filed on 28th March, 2016.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that there are very serious charges against the

respondent in the chargesheet and considering the

seriousness of the charges, the Tribunal ought not to have

passed a self-operative order on the Original Application.

He submitted that, this Court may at least extend the time

given by the Tribunal.

5. We have given careful consideration to the

submissions. The respondent had retired on 31st January,

2012. The enquiry was initiated in 2007, the chargesheet

Rane * 4/5 * WP-5501-2016 21.7.2017

was served on the respondent on 11th September, 2007.

As the enquiry was not completed till December, 2012,

the respondent filed an Original Application before the

Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the enquiry to be

completed by 31st December, 2015. In fact, the

petitioners should have approached the Tribunal for

extension of time but that was not done. In fact, nothing

was done till 28th March, 2016 when this petition was

filed. This petition was preferred long after the time

period stipulated by the Tribunal had expired.

6. Today, in July, 2017 if time for completion of

enquiry is extended which ought to have been completed

on 31st December, 2015 the respondent who has retired

on 31st January, 2012 will have to face disciplinary

proceedings after five and half years after the date of his

retirement.

7. Considering the above facts, this is not a fit

case where interference is called for under Article 226 of

Rane * 5/5 * WP-5501-2016 21.7.2017

the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is

discharged.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)