Smt.Priya W/O Sadashiv Banewar vs The Addl.Commissioner,Nag. & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 1036 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp3155.02

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3155/2002

Smt. Priya W/o Sadashiv Banewar,
aged 52 Yrs., R/o Lala Lajpatrai Ward, 
Samata Nagar, Bhandara.                                                                                                                                         ..Petitioner.

            ..Vs..

1.          The Additional Commissioner,
            Nagpur Division,  Nagpur.

2.          The Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.                                                                                                              ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Shri H.S. Chauhan, Advocate I/b Shri P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Ms. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     25.1.2018.
                                                              
ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri H.S. Chauhan, Advocate I/b Shri P.S. Chauhan, Advocate

for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and Ms. M.P.

Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on

five charges. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer exonerated the petitioner of three charges and found that two charges

were proved against the petitioner, one charge was that Shri M.S. Raut (Junior

2 wp3155.02

Assistant) and the petitioner were responsible for misappropriating amount of

Rs.69,251/- and the other charge was that the petitioner while working as

Officiating Headmistress of the school had not declared holiday on "Ganesh

Chaturthi". The Enquiry Officer directed recovery of an amount of Rs.37,572/-

from the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, after receiving the report of

the Enquiry Officer, issued letter dated 3 rd July, 2001 directing that two annual

increments receivable by the petitioner be permanently withheld and the

amount misappropriated by her be recovered from her and the period for

which she was under suspension be treated as suspension period. Being

aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed appeal which is decided by the

Additional Commissioner by the impugned order. The learned Additional

Commissioner has recorded that the amount of Rs.69,251/- was

misappropriated by Shri M.S. Raut (Junior Assistant) and that the petitioner

was also responsible for the misappropriation. The learned Additional

Commissioner, without recording any reason, quashed the order passed by the

Chief Executive Officer to the extent it directed that the amount which was

misappropriated should be recovered from the petitioner. The learned

Additional Commissioner has maintained the punishment directing withholding

of two annual increments.

3. After going through the impugned order and the material placed on

record, I find that the learned Additional Commissioner has not properly

3 wp3155.02

appreciated the facts and there is non-application of mind on relevant aspects.

Though the learned Additional Commissioner has maintained the punishment

inflicted on the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer, without recording any

reason the learned Additional Commissioner has directed that the amount of

misappropriation should not be recovered from the petitioner.

4. As I find that the order passed by the learned Additional

Commissioner is not sustainable, the following order is passed:

(i) The order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 17 th April, 2002 is set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh.

(iii) The petitioner and the respondent No.2 or its representative shall appear before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 16 th March, 2018 and abide by further orders / instructions in the matter.

(iv) As the matter is very old, learned Additional Commissioner shall dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner till 5th May, 2018.

The writ petition is disposed accordingly.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.