Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. Secretary, ... vs The Mah. Administrative ... on 1 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3530.11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3530/2011
PETITIONERS: 1. State of Maharashtra through
Secretary, Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Conservator of Forests, South
Chandrapur Circle, Mul Road, Chandrapur.
3. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Central Chanda Division, Mul Road, Chandrapur.
4. The Treasury Officer, Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur.
2. Murlidhar Tukaram Dhakate,
Aged about 60 years, Retired,
R/o Netaji Prathamik Shala,
Near Water Tank, Babupeth Ward, Chandrapur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for petitioners
Shri N.D. Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 01.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. By the present petition, the State of Maharashtra and its
Forest Department is before this Court to challenge the judgment and
wp3530.11.odt
order passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, dated 22.10.2010 in Original Application No.252/2007, by
which the learned Member of the Tribunal partly allowed the original
application filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 and thereby modified
the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent no.2 by the
Disciplinary Authority.
2. We have heard Shri A.M. Joshi, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the petitioners and Shri N.D. Thombre, the
learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 - employee in detail. The
respondent no.2 joined the services of the State of Maharashtra in Forest
Division as a Junior Clerk in the year 1970. From time to time, he was
promoted and after completion of services of 36 years, on attaining the
age of superannuation, he stood retired on 31.7.2005 as an Accountant.
3. The respondent no.2 was served upon a charge-sheet on
17.5.2003. Following were the charges against the respondent no.2.
(i) Serious negligence in Government Work.
(ii) Being responsible for the loss to the Government.
(iii) Misleading by preparing forged documents.
4. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer. The
District Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. There is no dispute that
the principles of natural justice were followed by the Enquiry Officer. The
wp3530.11.odt
Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.11.2004. It was held by the
Enquiry Officer that Charge no.1 was proved in its entirety. Insofar as
Charge Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, according to the findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer, those were partially proved.
The report was also served upon the respondent no.2 along
with show-cause-notice dated 14.3.2005 and it was proposed that the
Disciplinary Authority wished to inflict following punishments.
(a) Dismissal from service.
(b) Recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.7,65,700/-.
The respondent no.2 submitted his reply on 20.6.2005.
Though the show-cause-notice which was served upon the
respondent no.2 dated 14.3.2005 and the respondent no.2 submitted his
reply on 20.6.2005, the Disciplinary Authority did not take any action for
about two years even after the retirement of the respondent no.2 but his
retiral benefits were withheld. Ultimately, vide order dated 3.2.2007 the
Disciplinary Authority directed the recovery of Rs.7,65,700/- from the
respondent no.2 through its retiral benefits, namely, death-cum-
retirement gratuity, encashment of earned leave, commutation value of
pension and the remaining amount, if any, @ Rs.2,000/- per month from
wp3530.11.odt
the pension.
5. That gives rise to the filing of the original application before
the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal found
that the enquiry was conducted in consonance with the principles of
natural justice. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal was of the
view that the punishment awarded to the respondent no.2 was
disproportionate and therefore, he partly allowed the original application
and modified the order of punishment of recovery of Rs.7,65,700/- to the
extent that the respondent no.2 is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.1,91,425/-.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Tribunal can modify the
order of punishment, if it is disproportionate to the cause.
7. The learned Member of the Tribunal found that there was
inordinate delay in imposing the punishment. The learned Member also
took into consideration that the retiral benefits were not paid to the
respondent no.2. The Tribunal, in our view, has rightly observed that no
action was taken against the superiors of the respondent no.2, who were
under obligation to supervise the work of the respondent no.2.
8. Looking to the fact that there is inordinate delay of imposing
punishment and till that time the entire retiral benefits were withheld by
wp3530.11.odt
the Department and the fact that the superiors were not held responsible
under whose control the respondent no.2 was discharging his duties, in
our view, no exception can be taken to the judgment and order passed by
the Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the petition fails and is
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
