Adivasi Panther Kamgar Sanghtna ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6698 Bom

                                1                    CrWP.107.2020

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.107 OF 2020

 Adivasi Panther Kamgar Sanghatna
 Maharashtra State,
 Having its Registered Office at
 Plot No.2, Gulmohar Colony,
 Padegaon, Aurangabad
 Through Its President
 Prashant s/o. Mahadeorao Bodakhe                            .. Petitioner

          Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Ministry of Tribal Development,
          Through its Secretary
          Mantralaya, Mumbai

 2.       The Police Officer,
          Anti Corruption Bureau, Old Tehasil
          Office Building, Opp. Main Post Office
          Old Bazar, Aurangabad
 3.       Commissioner,
          Tribal Development Department,
          Nashik

 4.       Additional Commissioner,
          Tribal Development Department,
          Thane

 5.   Smt. Jijabai Sampat Sane
      Age : Major, Occu : Retired,
      R/o. Plot No.166, Ganpati Mandir,
      Ulka Nagari, Aurangabad                  .. Respondents
                             ...
 Advocate for the petitioner    : Ms Neha B. Kamble
 APP for respondent nos.1 to 4 : Mr S.G. Sangle
 Advocate for respondent no.5 : Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar h/f.
                                   Mr M.S. Deshmukh
Gajanan


::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2021 22:37:01 :::
                                   2                   CrWP.107.2020



                                  CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                 AND
                                          B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

                                  Date :    26-04-2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. Pursuant to our earlier orders, the petitioner has

placed before us the constitution of the petitioner Union.

Considering the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and

especially Section 22 with regard to the proportion of office-

bearers to be connected with the industry, we find that this

Union is formed for espousing the cause of those workers who

are working as employees in the agricultural area, connected

factories, brick-kilns, domestic servants, sugarcane harvesters

and building and construction. We are informed that, the seven

office-bearers set out on internal page 6 of the compilation of

documents tendered by the learned Advocate for the petitioner,

are employees in agricultural fields. However, no such statement

Gajanan

3 CrWP.107.2020

has been made in the memo of the petition and no employment

record is placed before us to indicate that at least 2/3rd of the

elected office-bearers are employees working in the industry in

which the Union claims to be connected with.

3. In the light of the above, we have perused prayer

clauses 'B' and 'C', which read as under :

"B. By issuing appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature, the respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to take immediate criminal action on the finding of the committee annexed at Exh.-F.

C. By issuing appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature, the respondent - State authorities be directed to register offence against the respondent No.5 punishable under Section 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in illegal promotion of Class IV employees case."

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly states,

on the the basis of the record placed before us that, the issue

raised in this petition is not in connection with any of it's

members or the service conditions or the employment relations

of it's members vis-a-vis their employments / employers.

Gajanan



                                    4                    CrWP.107.2020

5. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in

concluding that this petition at the behest of the Adivasi Panther

Kamgar Sanghatana, Maharashtra State, is not maintainable and

deserves to be dismissed.

6. In this background, it is submitted that, the

petitioner is willing to delete the Union as a petitioner from this

petition and since Mr Bodakhe is the complainant along with

Mr Deepak Sambhuappa Jirvankar, this petition be treated as

having been filed by an individual namely Prashant Mahadeorao

Bodakhe.

7. In the interest of justice, we permit the petitioner to

delete the Union from the cause title of this petition and retain

the name of the petitioner as Mr Prashant Mahadeorao Bodakhe.

Deletion be carried out by 27-04-2021.

8. Considering the above, we find that the respondent

authorities will have to answer prayer clause 'B' insofar as

Gajanan

5 CrWP.107.2020

respondent no.5 is concerned. The learned Prosecutor submits

that, considering the complaints against respondent no.5, she

has been compulsorily retired on 30-11-2015. Her pensionary

benefits have been withheld since the departmental enquiry was

to be initiated. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry at the

divisional level has been initiated on 15-10-2019. After the

enquiry is concluded and if the quantum of money said to have

been misappropriated by respondent no.5 is quantified, further

disciplinary action would follow and which may also include the

recovery of the said amount from her pensionary benefits.

9. The learned Advocate for Respondent no.5 has

strenuously contended that, the petitioner, namely Prashant

Mahadeorao Bodakhe, is a person having a chequered criminal

record. There are about four cases pending against him

involving offences punishable under Section 353. Sessions Case

No.6 of 22 is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge,

Hingoli, R.C.C. No.732 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Aurangabad at the stage of committal, R.C.C.

No.3023 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Gajanan

6 CrWP.107.2020

Aurangabad, and S.C.C. No.761 of 2019 for flouting the

externment order.

10. He further submits that, the petitioner is

conveniently using the identity of his so called Union by name

'Adivasi Panther Kamgar Sanghatna Maharashtra State' having

registration no.AWB/3001/2016. He uses the banner of this

Union for opening of Union offices at the different places by

using the name 'Bhartiya Adivasi Panther Sanghatna', though

the Union is not registered by the said name, 'Bhartiya'. He

persecutes Government officials by using this name of the Union

without a specific registration for his Union for carrying the

name 'Bhartiya'. There are externment orders against him. He

has not even established in this petition as to whether he was

residing in the hostel, which was conducted by the integrated

Adivasi Development Programme (Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas

Prakalpa, Aurangabad). The learned Advocate, therefore, prays

for the dismissal of this petition.

11. Considering prayer clause 'C', we could have

Gajanan

7 CrWP.107.2020

dismissed this petition as disciplinary proceedings have already

been initiated against respondent no.5. Conclusions in the

disciplinary proceedings cannot be a basis of any criminal

proceeding or criminal trial, vide this petition.

12. We are, however, entertaining this petition only on

account of the complaint of the petitioner having been

entertained by the establishment, in which, respondent no.5 was

employee. Keeping in view that disciplinary proceedings have

already been initiated against respondent no.5 and her

pensionary benefits have been withheld, we find it judicious to

direct the appropriate authorities to conclude the enquiry within

a particular time frame and if respondent no.5 is found guilty, to

initiate action as is permissible in law within a stipulated period.

Thereafter, respondent no.5 would be at liberty to voice her

grievance by availing of legal remedies that may be permissible

in law.

13. Considering the above, this petition is disposed off

with the following directions :

Gajanan



                                    8                    CrWP.107.2020




 (a)      The Enquiry Officer, Aurangabad would conclude the

enquiry initiated against respondent no.5, within a period of

four months after COVID - 19 restrictions are lifted.

(b) Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall

tender an Enquiry Report within 30 days.

(c) The competent authority, by following the due process of

law, shall ensure that, the enquiry culminates into a final order

of the employer of respondent no.5 within two months

thereafter.

(d) Needless to state, if respondent no.5 is held guilty

and if any amount to be recovered from her is quantified, the

same shall be deducted from her retiral / pensionary benefits

and her pensionary benefits shall thereafter be released within

three months.

14. At this juncture, the learned Prosecutor submits that,

Gajanan

9 CrWP.107.2020

there could be more persons along with respondent no.5 who

may be covered by the said enquiry report, if at all they are

found guilty and, therefore, same directions be made applicable

even to those persons. Needless to state, we observe that, these

directions shall also apply to those persons, if held guilty along

with respondent no.5, but would not apply to those persons who

are still in service.

15. Before parting with this case, we must record that, in

Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1550 of 2019, 1527 of 2019 and the

present petition no.107 of 2020, we find that the petitioner

namely Prashant Mahadeorao Bodakhe has printed letterheads

by using a word 'Bhartiya' before Adivasi Panther Sanghatna.

He has registered a Union by name 'Adivasi Panther Kamgar

Sanghatna Maharashtra State' bearing Registration

No.AWB/3001/2016. He shall be precluded for using the word

'Bhartiya' as his Union is not registered by the said name.

16. We also find that this petitioner is filing petitions

under the aegis of Adivasi Panther Kamgar Sanghatna in relation

Gajanan

10 CrWP.107.2020

to such causes of action which would not be within the realm of

the objects set out in the constitution of the Adivasi Panther

Kamgar Sanghatna. As such, the Registry of this Court is

directed to scrutinize every writ petition filed by Adivasi Panther

Kamgar Sanghatna as regards whether it pertains to any cause

of action of any member of it's Union vis-a-vis the employment

service conditions of the members and the employer with whom

such employees are in employment, since the Trade Unions Act,

1926 does not permit this Union to transgress the parameters of

it's Constitution and is precluded from taking up causes on

behalf of the public at large. The Registry shall accordingly

make it's noting on the objections sheet. No petition beyond the

scope of the Constitution of this Union, shall be entertained, at

the behest of such Union, unless it takes up a cause for it's

members in relation to their employment.

17. Rule is discharged.

          (B. U. DEBADWAR)                   (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
               JUDGE                               JUDGE




Gajanan