Bombay High Court
Zilla Parishad, Through Its Chief ... vs Vinayak Vasantrao Bhandekar on 19 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 wp 3608-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3608 of 2020
Zilla Parishad, Wardha Vs. Vinayak Vasantrao Bhandekar
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for the petitioner
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : JUNE 19, 2021
Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It is contended that the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur,
inter-alia proceeds on the basis that the relevant rule
governing the service of the respondent stipulates that
disciplinary enquiry cannot continue after the
retirement of the employee.
4. Attention of this Court is invited to Rule 27
of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1982, which apply to the respondent - employee. It is
pointed out that the said Rule specifically enables
continuation of a departmental enquiry against an
2 wp 3608-2020.odt
employee despite retirement, provided the event on
the basis of which such enquiry was initiated was
within four years of the date of retirement.
5. By inviting attention to the facts of the
present case, it is pointed out that the aforesaid Rule,
in fact, permits continuation of enquiry and the
Industrial Court reached a contrary conclusion in the
teeth of the aforesaid Rule.
6. Apart from this, it is pointed out that
although affidavit on behalf of the petitioner was filed
in the proceedings before the Industrial Court,
unfortunately due to the then counsel returning the
briefs and the petitioner engaging another counsel, the
proceedings before the Industrial Court could not be
attended to, with the result that the cross-examination
of the witness of the petitioner could not take place.
The Industrial court proceeded from that stage in the
absence of the counsel representing the petitioner and
the final judgment and order was passed.
7. It was pointed out that, in the affidavit
placed before the Industrial Court, it was specifically
stated that the departmental enquiry was in fact over
and the report was also ready when the affidavit was
sworn on 24/06/2019.
3 wp 3608-2020.odt
8. In view of the above, issue notice for final
disposal, returnable in the week commencing 12th July,
2021.
9. Since it is pointed out that provisional
pension is being paid to the respondent - employee
and provident fund amount was already paid to him,
till the next date of listing, there shall be ad-interim
stay in terms of prayer clause (iii).
10. The petitioner may additionally serve the
respondent through registered post AD.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
