Hai Mujahid Ekbal Abdul Siddiqui vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16267 Bom

                                                                    903-wp-950-2020.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     903 WRIT PETITION NO.950 OF 2020

                HAI MUJAHID EKBAL ABDUL SIDDIQUI
                                 VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chavan Sudhir K. AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. V.N. Patil - Jadhav Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. U.B. Bondar ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 24th NOVEMBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. On 17.11.2021, we had passed the following order:

"1. This petition has been decided by the judgment dated 07.10.2021 and is on board today with regard to the compliance of the direction that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/-, on or before 15.11.2021.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has moved a praecipe to indicate that the retirement date mentioned in paragraph 4(c) should read as "31.01.2022". We accept the said statement. Paragraph No.4(c) be accordingly corrected and the figure "2024" shall be replaced by "31.01.2022".

3. He then points out that in paragraph No.6, in the third line, it is mentioned that the petitioner had almost five years for retirement. He actually had two years and three months for retirement. As such, the said words "almost five years for retirement" in paragraph No.6 be replaced by the words "almost two years and three months for retirement". Corrected copy be uploaded.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for one week time as regards the compliance to be done by the petitioner.

903-wp-950-2020.odt

5. Stand over to 24.11.2021 for "passing orders"."

2. At the request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned

to this day. The learned advocate for the petitioner fairly submits that

though the petitioner is from Aurangabad and is in contact with the

learned advocate, he is not giving a commitment that the amount would

be deposited in this Court. He is an in service candidate and is

working as Civil Engineer Assistant in the Ofce of the Zilla Parishad,

Aurangabad.

3. We find from our judgment that despite we had held the

petitioner guilty of suppression of material fact for acquiring an order

from this Court, we had imposed a lesser amount by way of cost taking

into account that he was liable to repay the excess amount. We feel at

this stage that we had unnecessarily shown sympathy towards the

petitioner.

4. Nevertheless, in view of the above, we direct the Chief

Executive Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad to deduct an amount of

Rs.25,000/- in two equal installments from the monthly salary to be

paid to the petitioner in December 2021 and January 2022 and deposit

the said amount in this Court. The entry of such direction of penalizing

the petitioner shall be recorded in his service book.

(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Mujaheed//