Dadasaheb Dattatraya Lagad vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7235 Bom

                                   1          Cr WP 914 of 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 Criminal Writ Petition No. 914 of 2009


     *       Dadasaheb s/o Dattatraya Lagad,
             Age 55 years,
             Occupation : Service,
             R/o Omsai Niwas, Hanuman Nagar,
             Daund Road, Ahmednagar,
             At Present R/o Sales Tax Office,
             Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar.      ..         Petitioner.


                      Versus


     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through the Secretary,
             Finance and Planning Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

     2)      The Additional Commissioner
             Sales Tax (Establishment),
             Maharashtra State Mumbai
             Vikrikar Bhavan,
             New Building, 3rd Floor,
             Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.           .. Respondents.

             Original respondent Nos.3 to 7
             are deleted vide order dated
             6 September 2017.

                                   ----

     Shri. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for petitioner.

     Shri. V.S. Badakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
     respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                                   ----




::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:11:00 :::
                                              2        Cr WP 914 of 2009

                                  Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
                                         S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

                                  Date   :       15 SEPTEMBER 2017

     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J):

1) The petition is filed for giving direction to the

respondents to see that sanction is given under section

197 of Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the superior

officers like Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Joint

Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Assistant

Commissioner, Sales Tax Inspector for the offence of

destruction of record of the office mala fidely with the

intention to falsely implicate the present petitioner in

departmental inquiry and other matters. Both the sides

are heard.

2) The petitioner has been working as a Clerk in

Sales Tax Office at Ahmednagar. Initially the aforesaid

superior officers were made party respondents to the

present proceeding but in view of the nature of relief

claimed which is mainly against the Government, they

were subsequently deleted from the proceeding. It is the

contention of the petitioners that in the year 2005 a

3 Cr WP 914 of 2009

departmental enquiry was started against him under the

provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1979

for imposing major penalty on the basis of preliminary

enquiry made by the Sales Tax Officer. It is his contention

that all the superior officers had joined hands and only to

implicate him a preliminary report was obtained and some

false entries were made in the record. After filing reply to

the charges levelled against him in departmental enquiry,

he requested authority for issuing sanction order against

those officers in November 2005 under section 197 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended that the

proposal was rejected in January 2007 and so first writ

petition bearing No.175/2008 was filed in this Court. It is

contended that a direction was given to the authority to

see that reasoning is given for rejection of the proposal. It

is his contention that he came to be exonerated in the

year 2007 in the departmental enquiry. It is contended

that again unreasoned order is passed by which

permission is refused under section 197 of the Criminal

Procedure Code by the respondent - competent authority.

Relief is claimed for quashing and setting aside that order

also.

                                      4      Cr WP 914 of 2009

     3)               This Court has carefully gone through the

contentions of the present petitioner made against the

superior officers. They are mainly in respect of the steps

taken to start departmental enquiry and it is also

contended that even when audit was done of the office in

the past and no irregularity was found, only to harass him

charges were levelled of irregularity against him in

respect of some entries made in the years 1996-97, 1997-

98 and 1998-99. Even if the allegations are considered as

they are, it can be said that it will not be possible for the

present petitioner to show that the aforesaid superior

officers had destroyed the record or had manipulated the

entries and their acts amount to offences punishable

under sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. The

record produced shows that the grievances are in respect

of action taken against him by the superior officers. This

Court has gone through the orders made by which the

authorities refused the permission. Though the reasons

are not found in both the orders, the fact remains that

even in the application made to the authority to accord

sanction there are no specific allegations to make out the

case. At the time of the sanction necessary material is

5 Cr WP 914 of 2009

required to be made available including specific

allegations against each person against whom sanction is

to be issued. From the record, it can be said that there is

no such material available. In view of these circumstances

this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the

matter and issue direction which is prayed. In the result,

the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

            Sd/-                                               Sd/-
     (S.M. GAVHANE, J.)                                (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)




     rsl