Bombay High Court
Shri Uttam Sattuji Masram vs The State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors on 18 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp3786.02 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3786 OF 2002
Shri Uttam Sattuji Masram,
aged about 53 years, r/o
Government Ashram School,
Zari Jamni, Tah. Zari Jamni,
District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Upper Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Amravati.
3. Development Officer,
Joint Tribal Development Project,
Pandharkawda, District - Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Mrs. P.S. Chaudhari with Shri A.R. Sambre, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
JANUARY 18, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Kulkarni, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The short controversy is, whether the Disciplinary
Authority could have, without following the procedure
stipulated in Rule 9(2) and (3)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil
Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979, proceeded to
impose punishment upon the petitioner.
3. The punishment imposed is of treating period of
suspension as suspension and withholding one increment for
proved misconduct. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has
reached the age of superannuation sometimes in the year 2007
and has retired.
4. After hearing the respective counsel and perusing
the records, we find that the Inquiry Officer did exonerate the
petitioner of all three charges. The Disciplinary Authority,
however, did not agree with the Inquiry Officer on Charge No.
1. It held that Charge No. 1 has been proved. It, therefore,
imposed the punishment.
5. This disagreement and finding that Charge No. 1
has been proved, is recorded in the order of punishment
directly. In the said order while recording finding for Charge
No. 1, the Disciplinary Authority has referred to a government
witness and on the basis of that finding, held the petitioner
negligent in taking care of health of students. A student by
name Ku. Jotsna Bhimrao Gedam died of illness on 21.09.2000
and another student Sambhu Mahadeo Todsam died on
16.10.2000. The right course which the Disciplinary Authority
ought to have followed is settled and the Hon'ble Apex Court
has pointed out it in the judgment in the case of Yoginath D.
Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (1999) 7
SCC 739 in para 28. Here, this course has not been adopted.
6. The learned AGP has submitted that if the order of
punishment is being faulted with on technical ground, the
matter should be sent back to the Disciplinary Authority for
correcting the mistake.
7. We find that the petitioner has retired about 11
years back and for misconduct allegedly of the year 2000, has
suffered suspension / humiliation from 2000 onwards till his
superannuation. After 2002 he was also subjected to
punishment. Not only this, then he is also required to approach
this Court in the matter.
8. In this situation, taking overall view of the matter,
we quash and set aside the order of punishment dated
27.02.2002. We make it clear that notionally, increment
withheld shall be released to the petitioner by regularizing his
period of suspension as period of duty and his last pay shall
then be worked out. On the basis of that last pay, pension
payable to him today shall also be worked out. This exercise
shall be completed by 30.04.2018 and from 01.06.2018, the
petitioner shall be given increased pension accordingly.
However, for the period prior to 01.06.2018, he shall not be
entitled to any arrears.
9. Accordingly, with these observations and directions,
we partly allow the present writ petition and dispose it of. Rule
made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
