Bombay High Court
Akshay Ramesh Kharde vs Union Of India Through The ... on 9 July, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar
1/4 2.RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 13880 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 11117 OF 2021
Akshay Ramesh Kharde ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India through
The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers & Ors. ... Respondents
...........
Mr. Prasad P. Pathare i/b. Mr. Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Shenoy M. Bodhanwalla i/b. M/s. M. S. Bodhanwalla and Co. for
the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
..........
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATE : 9th JULY, 2021.
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
P. C:-
1. By this Review Petition the Petitioner seeks review of the order
dated 27th May, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No. 11117 of 2021 whereby interim relief was rejected.
2. Writ Petition is still pending. The review is sought on the
ground that there was no substance in the FIR for the offence under
section 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sonali
2/4 2.RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc
3. The second ground seeking recall of the order is that there
was no material on record that Petitioner has suppressed about filing
of the FIR against the Petitioner prior to 1st February, 2021 or at any
stage.
4. Third submission of the learned Counsel is that several
documents which were not placed on record by the learned
Advocate were relevant for the purpose of deciding Writ Petition.
Petitioner had also relied on the several judgments in support of his
submission that merely because FIR was pending and was not
brought into notice of the employer at the stage of appointment that
would not permit the employer to terminate the services of an
employee.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the Review
Petition on the ground that no grounds are made out under Rule 47
of Rules, 1908.
6. In so far as the first ground of the Petitioner that the FIR has
no substance, in so far as offence under section 376 or 354 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court has refused to grant
interim relief on the ground that Petitioner has suppressed factum of
Sonali
3/4 2.RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc
filing of FIR with the employer at any stage prior to 1 st February,
2021. In our view suppression of these facts was material and thus
interim relief was rejected by order dated 27th May, 2021.
7. In so far as second submission of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that there is no material on record that Petitioner has
suppressed about filing of FIR before 1 st February, 2021 is concerned,
the impugned order terminating the services of the Petitioner itself
indicate that termination was effected on the ground of suppression
of FIR. The Petitioner did not produce any material on record that
Petitioner had informed the employer about filing of such FIR. There
is thus no substance in this submission.
8. In so far as last submission of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner is concerned, that several documents were available with
the Petitioner but not produced by the learned Advocate on record
and several judgments which Review Petitioner sought to rely upon
have not been considered by this Court is concerned, we cannot
allow the Petitioner to re-argue the matter on merits because Writ
Petition is still pending.
9. This matter was heard on 27th May, 2021. We have only
Sonali
4/4 2.RPWL.13880.2021 in WPST.11117.2021.doc
considered whether case was made out for grant of interim relief or
not. Respondents have already filed their affidavit-in-reply. Review
Petition is devoid of merits. There is no merit in any of the grounds
raised by the Petitioner seeking recall of order dated 27th May, 2021.
10. Review Petition is thoroughly misconceived. Review Petition is
dismissed with cost quantified Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the
Petitioner to Respondent No.1 within one week from today.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
Sonali
