Bombay High Court
Prabharkar S/O Damodar Warhade vs State Of Maharashtra ... on 30 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp545.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 545 OF 2002.
Prabhakar s/o Damodar Warhade,
aged about 54 years, Occupation -
Service, resident of Mahavir Nagar,
Ward No.13, Buldhana,
Tq. and District Buldhana. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
through the Chief Executive Officer.
2. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Chikhali,
District Buldhana.
3. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti,
Deulgaon Raja,
District Buldhana.
4. Executive Engineer,
Zilla Parishad (Works)
Division Buldhana,
Taluq and District Buldhana. ....RESPONDENTS
.
------------------------------
None for Petitioner.
None for Respondents
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2017 00:04:06 :::
Judgment wp545.02
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
DATED : MAY 30, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per Z.A. Haq, J)
None for the parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana by which it is directed that an amount of
Rs. 39,540/- should be recovered from the petitioner, as while discharging
his duties as the Sectional Engineer he used less material worth Rs.
39,540/-.
3. We have gone through the documents placed on the record of the
petition which show that he had given letter dated 20.06.1999, and had
specifically made a grievance that he had not received copy of charge-sheet.
The Executive Engineer issued a letter dated 24.01.2001 calling upon the
petitioner to give his explanation. Petitioner again gave his explanation on
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2017 00:04:06 :::
Judgment wp545.02
3
06.08.2001 and then the impugned order came to be passed. Reference of
the explanation given by the petitioner is found in the preamble of the
impugned order.
4. Facts on record show that after receiving the explanation of
petitioner dated 06.08.2001, the Chief Executive Officer proceeded in the
matter and passed the impugned order. It is clear that the petitioner is not
given any opportunity to examine any witness. The respondent nos. 1 and
4 have not examined any witness to substantiate their allegations and
consequently the petitioner is deprived of opportunity to cross-examination.
The impugned order casts a stigma on the petitioner, and therefore, it was
necessary for the respondent nos. 1 and 4 to comply with the principles of
natural justice. In our view the impugned order having been passed without
complying with the requirements of principles of natural justice, is
unsustainable and is required to be set aside and the matter has to be
remanded to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana for fresh
inquriy from the stage of receipt of explanation of petitioner. Hence the
following order.
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2017 00:04:06 :::
Judgment wp545.02
4
ORDER
(1) The impugned order dated 19.10.2001 passed by
respondent no.1 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Buldhana is quashed.
(2) The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana for inquiring
into the matter from the stage of receipt of reply /
explanation of the petitioner.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana
shall complete the inquiry at the earliest possible.
(4) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their
own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
