Rajendra Amrutrao Ghongade vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14289 Bom

                                                                     8.wp.5870.2018 Judg..odt
                                              1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.5870/2018

          Rajendra Amrutrao Ghongade,
          Aged about 52 years,
          R/o. Mahavir Nagar, Yavatmal,
          Tq & Dist. Yavatmal.                              ..... PETITIONER

                                      // VERSUS //

 1.     The Divisional Commissioner,
        Amravati, Division Amravati.

 2.     The Chief Executive Officer,
        Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
        Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.

 3.     The Assistant Program Officer,
        M.R.G.S. Panchayat Sammittee,
        Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal                              .... RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner.
          Ms. M. Barbde, AGP for respondent No.1.
          Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for respondent No.2.
          None for Respondent no.3 (served)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  CORAM :         AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                  DATED   :       01/10/2021


 ORAL JUDGMENT :


 1]               Heard Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.

Barbde learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Tajne, learned counsel

for respondent No.2.

                                                                8.wp.5870.2018 Judg..odt


 2]               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.


 3]               Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

 for the parties.


 4]               A punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments for two

years has been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent No.1 by

the impugned order dated 5.3.2018, modifying the punishment of

stoppage of one yearly increment permanently, as imposed by

respondent No.2 by the order dated 20.7.2016.

5] Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting

my attention to page 5 of the enquiry report dated 2.3.2016 submits that

the work of filling of the e-muster was of the Assistant Program Officer,

who thereafter was required to take the signature of the Block

Development Officer and then send the same to the concerned

Grampanchayat. It is therefore, submitted that it was the primary duty

of the Assistant Program Officer, to have filled in muster roll and no

liability could have been saddled upon the petitioner who was the Block

Development Officer. The Block Development Officer was only to verify

and put his signature upon the e-muster after the same were prepared by

the Assistant Program Officer. That being so, it is the contention that no

responsibility could be saddled upon the Block Development Officer, and

consequent penalty be imposed on account of its so called violation.

8.wp.5870.2018 Judg..odt

6] The position that primary responsibility of filling in the

e-muster roll was that of the Assistant Program Officer is not disputed by

Mr. Tajne, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and if that was so, then

role of the Block Development Officer becomes secondary and would

come into play, only when the completed muster roll were placed, before

him for his verification and signature, in absence of which, no liability

could have been fastened upon the Block Development Officer, as it was

not his responsibility at all. This position though evident from the

enquiry report dated 2.3.2016, still the liability has been fastened upon

the Block Development Officer/petitioner, in my opinion, incorrectly

imposing punishment upon the petitioner which has been reduced by the

respondent No.1. It is also on record that no action has been initiated

upon the Assistant Program Officer whose primary duty was to prepare

the e-muster roll.

7] It is therefore, apparent, that since no liability could have

been fastened upon Block Development Officer/petitioner to fill in the

muster roll which was the job of the Assistant Program Officer, the

punishment imposed upon him was clearly not justified in the facts of

the present case. That being the position the impugned order, as well as

punishment imposed by the enquiry report dated 2.3.2016 are both

quashed and set aside.

8.wp.5870.2018 Judg..odt

8] The Petition is, therefore, allowed in above terms. No order

as to costs.

9] In case of any recovery has been made from the Block

Development Officer on account of imposition of the penalty, the same

be refunded back to him, within a period of two months from today.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)

Sarkate.