Bombay High Court
Arifuddin Rahimuddin Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 February, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
{1}
wp423619.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4236 OF 2019
Arifuddin Rahimuddin Ansari,
age: 50 years, Occ: Service,
R/o New jalna, Burhannagar,
Tq. and District Jalna. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra;
02 The Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
03 The Chief Executive Ofcer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna. Respondents
Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.S.R.Yadav, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.
DATE : 11th February, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard fnally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective
parties.
{2}
wp423619.odt
2 The petitioner was working as Head Master in Zilla
Parishad Urdu Primary School at Shevali. He was subjected to
inquiry in respect of seven charges levelled against him. The
Assistant Commissioner (Inquiries) has conducted inquiry and
recorded a fnding in afrmative to all the seven charges. The
Chief Executive Ofcer/Disciplinary Authority has accepted those
fndings and after hearing the petitioner passed the order. The
Disciplinary Authority has awarded penalty (i) to bring the salary
of the petitioner at the basic stage; (ii) the period of suspension,
except for the purpose of retiral benefts, cannot be considered
for any other purposes; and (iii) to recover the misappropriated
amount at once.
3 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad. By the judgment and order dated
18.01.2018, the appellate authority has partly allowed the
appeal and thereby reduced the punishment to the extent of
stopping two increments permanently. Hence, this writ petition.
4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
as the petitioner was working as Head Master in Zilla Parishad
Urdu Primary School, he could not understand the inquiry
{3}
wp423619.odt
proceedings which were conducted in Marathi. Furthermore, the
record was also not verifed. In view of the same, principles of
natural justice were not followed. The learned Counsel submits
that furthermore, copy of the inquiry report was not given to the
petitioner at any time nor he was given any opportunity of being
heard by the disciplinary authority while imposing the
punishment. The learned Counsel submits that though the
appellate authority has reduced the said punishment, in terms of
Rule 21 (2) (c) (i) (ii), proviso (ii) and (iii), the appellate authority
is bound to make inquiry further or direct to restrict the inquiry to
the extent the punishment is likely to be imposed. The learned
Counsel submits that even though the punishment is reduced by
the appellate authority, same is major punishment and in view of
the same, the order passed by the appellate authority is not
legal, proper and correct.
5 In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:
01 K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39;
02 Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
others, (2018) 13 SCC 161;
{4}
wp423619.odt
6 In the alternative, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that considering the length of service of the
petitioner and since two months are only remained for his
retirement on superannuation, a lenient view may be taken.
7 The learned Counsel for Respondent No.3- Zilla
Parishad submits that the petitioner was given the fullest
opportunity in the inquiry and after verifcation of the
documents, the Inquiry Ofcer, who was of the rank of Assistant
Commissioner, has recorded a fnding in respect of all the seven
charges in the afrmative. The learned Counsel submits that the
Chief Executive Ofcer/Disciplinary Authority has thereafter
given an opportunity to the petitioner by issuing show cause
notice and after considering his explanation, imposed the
punishment. The learned Counsel submits that however, in the
appeal, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has taken a
lenient view and reduced the punishment to the extent of
stoppage of two increments permanently. The learned Counsel
submits that considering the gravity of the charges levelled
against the petitioner, the fndings recorded by the Inquiry
Ofcer, further reduction of punishment, as alternatively
submitted by the petitioner, is unwarranted and uncalled for.
The writ petition may be dismissed.
{5}
wp423619.odt
8 I have carefully perused the annexures to this
petition. It appears that after giving show cause notice to the
petitioner, the Chief Executive Ofcer/disciplinary authority has
accepted the fndings recorded by the Inquiry Ofcer and
imposed the punishment, which appears to be a major
punishment. However, in the appeal, the appellate authority has
taken a lenient view and reduced the said punishment into
stoppage of two increments permanently.
9 In terms of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the
punishment, as provided in terms of clause (iv) and (vii) is as
follows:
4 Nature of penalties:
Without prejudice to the provisions of
any law for the time being in force, the following
penalties may, for good and sufcient reasons and
as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Parishad
servant, namely:-
(I) ....... ...... ...... ...... .......
(ii) ...... ...... ...... ...... ........
{6}
wp423619.odt
(iii) ..... ...... ...... ..... ......
(iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or
post or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in
a time scale;
(v) compulsory retirement;
(vii) dismissal from service which shall
ordinarily be a disqualifcation for further
employment;
9 In terms of provisions of Rule 6, the punishments, as
provided in clauses (iv) to clause (vii) of Rule 4 are major
penalties. In terms of Rule 21(2)(c) (ii) proviso (iii) if the
enhanced penalty which the appellate or revisional authority as
the case may be, proposed to impose is one of the penalties
specifed in clauses (iv) to (vii) or Rule 4 and an enquiry under
Rule 6 has not already been held in the case, such authority
shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 9, itself hold such inquiry
or direct that inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of
the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the Parishad
servant concerned an opportunity of making any representation
which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such
orders as it may deem ft.
{7}
wp423619.odt
10 In the instant case, clause (iv) to (viii) of Rule 4 are
not attracted. Furthermore, the punishment, as reduced by the
appellate authority about stoppage of two increments
permanently, does not fall within the ambit of Rule 6 of the Rules
of 1964. In view of the same, the petitioner has no case on
merits.
11 So far as the alternate submission about reduction of
the penalty, as imposed by the appellate authority, is concerned,
it appears that the appellate authority has already taken a
lenient view by reducing the punishment to the extent of
stoppage of two increments permanently. Thus considering the
fndings recorded by the Inquiry Ofcer in respect of all the seven
charges in afrmative and since the punishment, as imposed by
the disciplinary authority, came to be reduced substantially in
appeal, I am not inclined to further reduce the punishment in
any form.
12 So far as cases relied upon by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner are concerned, ratio laid down in those cases is
not even remotely applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
{8}
wp423619.odt
13 Hence, the following order:
Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs.
(V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE
adb
