Sajan Ashokrao Tote vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10622 Bom

                                                        WP No.8205/2021
                                       1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    246 WRIT PETITION NO.8205 OF 2021

                         SAJAN ASHOKRAO TOTE
                                  VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
               Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vibhute Sunil M.
                AGP for Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. S.P. Tiwari
                                     ...

                               CORAM   :   S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                           R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 09/08/2021.

PER COURT :

. The caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated under

the impugned judgment.

2. Mr. S.M. Vibhute, learned advocate for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner could not file his say to the Vigilance

Report. At the relevant time, father of the petitioner had died

due to cancer. As such, he has sought adjournment. Only

because of this reason which was beyond the control of the

petitioner, the petitioner could not file say to the Vigilance

Report and submit his say.

3. The learned A.G.P. submits that ample opportunity

WP No.8205/2021

has been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was only

prolonging the matter. The Committee has considered all the

documentary evidence on the record and the petitioner was also

given opportunity to argue the matter.

4. We have gone through the judgment and order.

5. It appears that the petitioner did not file his say to

the Vigilance Report. It also appears from the judgment and

order that the petitioner had given application that his father is

suffering from cancer and in the meantime, the father of the

petitioner died, though the petitioner could have filed his say on

the next date. However, considering that the matter pertains to

social status of the petitioner, we are inclined to grant one more

opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner also deserves to be

mulct with costs.

6. In the light of that, we quash and set aside the

impugned judgment and order. The parties are relegated before

the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall deposit cost of

Rs.10,000/- with this Court. The registry shall transmit the said

amount to the Government Medical College and Hospital,

WP No.8205/2021

Aurangabad for spending it on poor patients.

7. The cost shall be deposited on or before 2 nd of

September 2021. The petitioner shall appear before the

Committee on 3rd September, 2021 after deposit of the cost.

Deposit of the cost is condition precedent. The Committee shall

endeavour to decide the proceeding expeditiously.

8. The order terminating service of the petitioner is also

set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service within

fifteen days. The petitioner be given continuity, however, shall

not be given backwages. The employer may take further course

of action depending upon the outcome of the judgment of the

scrutiny committee.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

ssc/