The State Of Mah.Thr The Secretary ... vs Ramesh S/O Pandurang Bhongade
2021 Latest Caselaw 2146 Bom

                                                                                             wp.3587.08.odt
                                                        1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                       ...

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3587/2008

1)       The State of Maharashtra
         Through the Secretary
         Higher and Technical Education Department
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)       The Joint Director
         Higher Education
         Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

3)       Shri P.K. Lakhe
         Lecturer in Economics and Inquiry officer
         Institute of Science,Nagpur.                                         ..        PETITIONERS



                   versus

         Ramesh s/o Pandurang Bhangade
         Aged about 60 years, occu: Retired
         Near Govt. Science College
         Gadchiroli.                                                          ..       RESPONDENT

..................................................................................................................
          Mr. I.J. Damle, Asst. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners
          None for respondent
..................................................................................................................

                                       CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                              PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

DATED: 2nd February, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ.):

1. The judgment and order dated 1st August 2007, passed by

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,

wp.3587.08.odt

allowing Original Application No.369/2006 is challenged in this writ

petition by the State of Maharashtra and two of its officers. The original

application was at the instance of the sole respondent in this writ

petition, a retired Government servant.

2. On the allegation that the respondent had embezzled

Rs.1,24,559.50, prosecution was launched against him. He was also

placed under suspension. However, the criminal court acquitted the

respondent and held him 'not guilty'. The period spent under suspension

was regularised and the respondent was paid the benefits which had

accrued in his favour. In due course of time, the respondent retired from

service on 31st August, 2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. His

retiral dues were released withholding a sum of Rs.1,48,203. Till such

time the respondent was in service, no departmental proceeding was

initiated against him for recovery of the alleged loss caused by him to

the Government. Even after retirement, no departmental proceeding was

drawn up; instead, a Committee was formed which was directed to

conduct an enquiry into the act of embezzlement causing loss to the

Government. Withholding of a part of his retiral dues prompted the

respondent to move the original application before the Tribunal. Upon

hearing advocates for the parties, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the

original application by directing the respondents therein (the petitioners

here) to pay to the original applicant Rs.1,48, 203 at the earliest and, in

wp.3587.08.odt

any case, within a period of one month from the date of the order

together with interest @ 8.5 % compound rate, admissible to him, as

per the existing rules in the manner as indicated.

3. We have heard Mr. I.J.Damle, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the petitioners.

4. None appears for the respondent.

5. We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned

judgment and order of the Tribunal is unexceptionable. During the

period the respondent was in service, no departmental proceeding was

instituted against him. It is true that Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 confers power on the Governor to

withhold/withdraw pension if a Government servant is found to be

guilty of gross misconduct or negligence while in service. However, Rule

27(2)(b)(ii) of the said Rules ordains that there can be no departmental

proceeding in respect of acts of omission/commission which occurred

during the period of four years preceding such institution . In the case at

hand, not only no departmental proceeding has been instituted by

issuance of a charge-sheet, the alleged act of embezzlement by the

respondent, if at all, took place during 1984-85. In view thereof, the bar

created by Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) squarely got attracted and the Tribunal by

interdicting the action initiated by the petitioners in constituting a

Committee did not, in our opinion, commit any infirmity, far less legal

wp.3587.08.odt

infirmity, warranting interference. The writ petition is thoroughly

without merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

6. The order of the Tribunal, if not complied with, shall be

complied with at the earliest but not later than a month from date.

7. Since the respondent has not appeared before us today,

office shall forward a copy of this order to him.

                JUDGE                                  CHIEF JUSTICE

sahare