Smt. Vanita V. Randive vs The Honble Chief Metropolitan ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5736 Bom

                                                                     34-WP-1928-20.doc

Sharayu Khot.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2020


     Smt. Vanita V. Randive                                     ...Petitioner

             Versus

     The Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate & Anr.                                          ...Respondents

                                           ----------
     Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
     Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                                           ----------

                                           CORAM :           K.K. TATED &
                                                             R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                          DATE          :    30 March 2021

     ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the

Memorandum dated 22nd January 2020 issued by the

Respondent No. 1 proposing to hold a departmental enquiry

against the Petitioner under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil

Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

34-WP-1928-20.doc

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is

voluntarily retired from the offce of the Respondents on 31st

October 2019 as contemplated by the proviso of Sub-Rule 2 of

Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules,

1982.

4. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submits that in view of voluntary retirement, the departmental

enquiry is not completed. He further submits that even the

Respondents failed and neglected to serve the copy of the

Memorandum dated 22nd January 2020 on the Petitioner at

her present correct address. Therefore, in the interest of

justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the said

Memorandum dated 22nd January 2021.

5. Advocate for the Petitioner in support of his

contention, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court (at pg. 43

and 47 of the Petition) in case of Anandrao Dhondiba

Kandalkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .1 and Nikanth

s/o Ramji Akarte Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors .2. Both the

1 1995(2) Bom CR 249 2 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 132

34-WP-1928-20.doc

rulings will be considered at the time of fnal hearing of the

Petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned

Counsel for the Petitioner and the averments made in the

Petition, there is no question of granting stay to the

department enquiry. In any case, at the most, the Respondents

to proceed with the departmental enquiry and complete the

same, but shall not pass the fnal order without permission

from this Court. Hence, we pass the following order:-

(i) Admit.

(ii) Respondents can proceed with the departmental

enquiry of the Petitioner according to law.

(iii) Respondents are restrained from passing any fnal

order in the said departmental enquiry without leave

of this Court.

(iv) Hearing of the Writ Petition is expedited.

34-WP-1928-20.doc

(v) Mr. Datar, the learned Counsel waives service on

behalf of both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

[R.I. CHAGLA J.]                             [K.K. TATED, J.]