Rajendra Ganpatrao Khulkhule vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7193 Bom

                                             1                  1409WP2347.02.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                                   
                      WRIT PETITION NO.2347/2002

 Rajendra S/o Ganpatrao Khulkhule,
 C/o. V.R. Alur, near Kahate Gokhale
 Vyam Shala, Chhoti Dhantoli, Nagpur.                   :          PETITIONER

                ...VERSUS...

 1.             State of Maharashtra through
                its Secretary, Public Works Department,
                Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

 2.             The Superintending Engineer,
                Public Works Department Circle,
                Yeotmal.


 3.             The Executive Engineer,
                Road Projects, Division, 
                Chandrapur.                          :        RESPONDENTS

Mr. Rohit Vaidya h/f Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

__________________________________________________________

CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, Manish Pitale, JJ DATE : 14.09.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K. Deshpande,J.):

1. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in the

service of Public Works Department of the State Government,

2 1409WP2347.02.odt

since 24.02.1984. He was terminated in the year 1987 and

thereafter, reappointed in 20.12.1989. While he was in service, the

respondent passed an impugned order dated 22.01.1993 for

recovery of amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- from the petitioner on

account of excess payment to the labourers for measurements. It

is alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated this amount.

2. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Original

Application No. 81/1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.06.2002. Hence, the present

writ petition.

3. On 11.09.2002, this Court granted Rule in the matter with

ad-interim relief in respect of recovery of amount from the

petitioner, which is operating till this date.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the

parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which records

certain findings on the merits of the charges levelled against the

petitioner, particularly in the light of fact that no inquiry was

3 1409WP2347.02.odt

conducted by the employer against the petitioner. Our attention is

invited to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 before the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in which it is stated in

paragraph No. 6 as under:-

"6. It is submitted that the Superintendent Engineer, P.W. Circle, Amravati, has then appointed Shri R.B. Laddha then Executive Engineer, PWD 2 Yavatmal, to investigate in this matter accordingly Shri Laddha then Executive Engineer has checked the measurement of earth work and found that the applicant and Shri A.S. Hanumante and S.H. Sabnis, who were involved in this project have made excess payment of Rs. 1,73,313/-, Rs. 82,937/- and Rs. 2,17,576/- respectively. It is submitted that on the basis of this report Department Enquiry against Shri A.S. Hanumante and S.H. Sabnis was conducted, however, it is seen from the available record that no Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the applicant as his services already terminated under the Zero Budget and as such it might not be called for joint measurement."

5. It is not in dispute that A.S.Hanumante and S.H.Sabnis

were superior officers of the petitioner, against whom inquiry was

conducted and order of recovery was passed. It is not in dispute

that no inquiry, imposing minor punishment was conducted

against the petitioner. The petitioner was reappointed in the year

4 1409WP2347.02.odt

1989 and the charges pertain to the date of 26.12.1988. The

petitioner was thus out of employment on 26.12.1988.

6. In view of the factual position, we find that the action for

recovery of amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- could not have been taken

against the petitioner without making any inquiry, at least for

imposition of minor punishment, particularly when such inquiry

was conducted against the superior officers in respect of the same

event. No discriminatory could have been provided to the

petitioner. The Tribunal has committed an error in recording

findings on merits of the charge leveled. We can not therefore,

sustain the order of the Tribunal also.

7. In the result, we allow this writ petition and quash and set

aside the judgment and order dated 13.06.2002 passed by the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.

81/1993 and also set aside the order dated 22.01.1993 directing

the recovery of the amount of Rs. 01,74,000/- from the petitioner.

We however, grant liberty to the respondents to initiate complete

process of inquiry if any, within period of six months from the date

of the knowledge of this judgment. If the inquiry is not completed,

5 1409WP2347.02.odt

within period of six months, the respondent are restrained from

conducting the inquiry. The very object of fixing time limit is to

avoid prolongation of inquiry and creating obstructions in release

of retiral benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled to and

therefore, question of extension of time to complete the inquiry or

to impose the punishment on any subsequent occasion shall not be

allowed.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

                JUDGE                              JUDGE

 Gohane