Bombay High Court
Dr. Anil S/O Namdeorao Wankhede vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 28 July, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1/5 15-2628-21.21-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2021
PETITIONER :- Dr. Anil s/o Namdeorao Wankhede, Aged
about 54 yrs.; Occ: Service, R/o
Additional Civil Surgeon, District
Hospital, Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Principal Secretary, Public Health
Department, 10th Floor, GT Hospital
Campus Building, New Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai-01.
2. Commissioner, Public Health
Department, Aarogya Bhavan,
St.Georges Hospital Compound, P.
D'Mello Road, CST, Mumbai-01.
3. Director - 1, Public Health Department,
Aarogya Bhavan, St.Georges Hospital
Compound, P. D'Mello Road, CST,
Mumbai-01.
4. Deputy Director of Health Services,
Akola Region, Lady Hospital Compound,
Akola.
5. Regional Department Enquiry Officer,
Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
6. Chief Administrative Officer & Presenting
Officer, Office of the Deputy Director of
KAVITA
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2021 02:08:44 :::
2/5 15-2628-21.21-Judgment
the Health Services, Nagpur Region,
Nagpur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Narendra D. Thombre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.N. R. Patil, AGP for the respondents.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 28.07.2021.
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6, who appears by waiving
notice.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The grievance is that for an alleged misconduct
pertaining to alleged unruly behaviour of the petitioner under
the influence of liquor allegedly indulged on 27.04.2007, a
departmental enquiry is being sought to be initiated against the
petitioner in the year 2018, about ll years after the alleged
KAVITA
3/5 15-2628-21.21-Judgment
incident of misconduct took place. By relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakisan, reported in 1998 AIR (SC) 1833 the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right of the
petitioner to have the disciplinary proceedings against him
concluded expeditiously has been violated in the present case, as
there is no explanation whatsoever, given for the delay and the
petitioner has been resultantly made to undergo mental agony
and also monetary loss due to dilatory tactic on the part of the
employer, without there being any fault on his part in delaying
initiation of the departmental enquiry proceedings. He submits
that all these aspects of the matter, have been completely ignored
by the learned Member of the Tribunal.
4. On going through the charge sheet (page no.37), and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State
of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakisan (supra), we are convinced
that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the law so laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case, the misconduct
KAVITA
4/5 15-2628-21.21-Judgment
was in the nature of alleged unruly behaviour of the petitioner
under the influence of liquor and this alleged misconduct had
taken place on 27.04.2007. The charge sheet for this misconduct
however, has been issued to the petitioner on 17.12.2018. There is
absolutely, nothing stated in the charge sheet or any other
document explaining the 11 years long delay, which has been
caused in the present case. The misconduct does not pertain to
any charge of corruption or bribery or any financial irregularity.
The charge pertains to the personal behaviour, which has been
seen and perceived to be misconduct by the employer. In such a
case, it was necessary for the employer to have initiated
departmental enquiry proceedings without any delay, if at all, it
was serious about disciplining the Officer. But, the employer has
not done so. The employer has also not given any reason
justifying the delay. Therefore, we are of the view that strong
prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner seeking the
stay of the departmental enquiry proceedings.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. We direct
KAVITA
5/5 15-2628-21.21-Judgment
that till O.A No. 858 of 2019 is decided finally in accordance with
law, there shall be stay to the further proceedings of the
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner.
6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KAVITA
