Nikhil Ramkrushan Wardekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11480 Bom

                                            1                                990 wp.9182.21.odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                         990 WRIT PETITION NO.9182 OF 2021

                        NIKHIL RAMKRUSHAN WARDEKAR
                                   VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Digambar B. Shinde.
AGP for Respondent/State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande.
                                   ...


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

                                     DATE       :   21st August, 2021.

P.C.:

.         The petitioner is placed on supernumerary post for the second

time. Initially, when the petitioner was placed on supernumerary post,

he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7853 of 2020. This

Court under order dated November 27, 2020, allowed the writ petition

quashing the order placing the petitioner on supernumerary post and

directing the Scrutiny Committee to decide the proceeding within six

months. As the proceedings are not decided within six months, the

petitioner is again placed on supernumerary post.

2 The learned AGP accepts notice for all the respondents.

3 It is not the fault of the petitioner in the proceeding not being

decided by the Committee.

                                          2                               990 wp.9182.21.odt




4         The validation proceedings are still pending.            As per the

contentions of the petitioner, vigilance is not yet conducted. Until the

vigilance is conducted, the petitioner has no role to play.

5 In light of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

6 The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 8th

September, 2021.

7 The Committee may endeavour to decide the proceeding within

six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

8 If the proceedings are not decided within six months, then the

Court would view the act of the respondents as a contempt of the

orders of this Court.

9 We are constraint to observe this because earlier directions of

deciding the proceedings within six months are also not adhered to by

the Committee.

10 The respondents may not take adverse action against the

petitioner only on the ground that the validation proceeding is pending.

                                             3                                990 wp.9182.21.odt


      11     The respondent / employer may take further course of action

depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the

Committee in validation proceeding.

12 The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

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