Syed Liyakatali vs State Of Mah. Thru. Its Secty. & 3 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2725 Bom

                                                                                                          WP.5889.07
                                                            1


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                            ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 5889/2007

Syed Liyakatali Major, occu: service R/o Behind Nehru School, New Basti, Chandrapur. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forests Department Mantralaya, Bombay -32.

2)        Commissioner and Director of Land Records
          M.S. Pune. 

3)        Deputy Director of Land Records
          Nagpur  Region, Nagpur. 

4)        Enquiry Officer and Special Superintendent
          Land  Records Department
          Chandrapur.                                        ...RESPONDENTS
          (R-4 deleted as per Court's order
          dated: 09.01.2008)

...........................................................................................................................

Ms. R.P. Jog, Adv. h/for Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. M.S.Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent nos.1 to 3 ...........................................................................................................................

                                                    CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                   MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                    DATED :       5th  June,  2017

ORAL JUDGMENT:  (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)





                                                                                  WP.5889.07

Ms. R.P. Jog, the learned counsel holding for Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari,

the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the adjournment of the matter by

one week. However, we are not inclined to grant an adjournment as the issue

involved in this petition is extremely short and is concerned with the part of

the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that denies the back

wages to the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner was not in

service. Also, we find that during the last roster, this petition could not be

heard as this petition was assigned to a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.M.

Deshpande was a member and the Hon'ble Judge does not hear the petitions

in which Mr.A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate files the Vakalatnama. Today

though this Bench was in a position to hear the petition, from tomorrow there

is a change in the assignment and again the matter would not be heard till the

assignment changes after a couple of months as Hon'ble Justice R.K.

Deshpande, who is a member on the Bench for hearing these matters, would

also not be hearing the petitions in which Advocate A.C. Dharmadhikari is the

arguing counsel. We have read the impugned order of the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal, with the assistance of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader and in the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined

to grant the adjournment, especially when the matter is extremely short and

the same could have been easily argued even with a short notice.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 10th March 2005, so far as it

WP.5889.07

denies back-wages to the petitioner after directing his reinstatement in service.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the respondents and at

the relevant time ie, in the year 1987, he was working in the Office of the

Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur. The petitioner was charge-sheeted

for unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty regularly and further

remaining absent unauthorizedly while working in the office of the

Consolidation Officer, Chandrapur. A charge that the petitioner had

misbehaved with the Consolidation Officer during the period between

23.03.1987 and 28.03.1987 was also levelled against him. An enquiry was

conducted and both the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be

proved. Since the charges were grave and serious, the petitioner was removed

from the service. The petitioner challenged the order of his removal in a

departmental appeal. The departmental appeal was however dismissed. The

petitioner then challenged the order of his removal as also the order of the

appellate authority in Original Application No.1074/1994. The Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal held that there was no flaw in the departmental

enquiry and the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. The

Tribunal refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer

against the petitioner. The Tribunal, however, felt that the punishment

reflected upon the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the act of

misconduct and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled

for reinstatement in service but without back wages. The part of the order that

WP.5889.07

denies the back-wages, is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

4. On a reading of the impugned order and on a perusal of the documents

annexed to the Writ Petition, as also the grounds raised in the same, it appears

that the Tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that the petitioner was not

entitled to back-wages. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner were

held to be proved and the the Tribunal had held that the findings recorded by

the Inquiry Officer were just and proper. The Tribunal held that the misconduct

was proved against the petitioner but the punishment inflicted upon the

petitioner was harsh. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed

the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service but without back wages.

In fact, the Tribunal had observed in paragraph 13 of the judgment that it

was necessary to set aside the order of removal and direct the respondents to

inflict a punishment other than dismissal, removal, termination or compulsory

retirement on the petitioner. Though the Tribunal had held so, in the very next

paragraph, the Tribunal held that the respondents should reinstate the

petitioner in service. Be that as it may, since the charges levelled against the

petitioner were held to be proved and the petitioner had committed serious

misconduct of misbehaving with the Consolidation Officer and leaving the

place where the Consolidation Officer had gone for a meeting with his

subordinates, it cannot be said that the petitioner should not be punished at

all. The Tribunal had rightly held that though the petitioner would be entitled

to reinstatement, he would not be entitled to back wages. Since the charges

WP.5889.07

levelled against the petitioner in respect of indisciplined behaviour with his

superiors and his unauthorised absence are proved, the order of denial of back

wages cannot be said to be bad in law. Granting back wages to the petitioner

would be like favouring the petitioner who is held guilty of serious misconduct

and has not worked from the date of his termination till the date of his

reinstatement. There is no flaw whatsoever with the order of the Tribunal so as

to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The order of the

Tribunal is just and proper so far as it denies the back wages to the petitioner.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rule stands discharged.

                         JUDGE                                      JUDGE

sahare