The Administrator - O.T. Admn., ... vs Jayram Ranoji Patole
2021 Latest Caselaw 15108 Bom

                                                    11-WP-517-2009
Pdp




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 517 OF 2009

      The Administrator & Ors.                    .. Petitioners

                 Versus

      Shri Jayram Ranoji Patole                   .. Respondent

      Mr. H. S. Vnegaonkar for petitioners.
      Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for
      respondent.

                      C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                             M. S. KARNIK, J.

                          DATE:      OCTOBER 20, 2021


      PC:

1. The respondent in this writ petition approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal" for short) by presenting an original application. Therein, the respondent challenged an order of penalty dated 14th August, 2006 imposed on him following disciplinary proceedings as well as a revisional order dated 17th January, 2008 confirming the said order of penalty. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 20th June, 2008 quashed the order of penalty as well as the revisional order and granted consequential benefits to the respondent.

11-WP-517-2009

2. The petitioners were the respondents in the original application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, they have challenged it in this writ petition. While issuing Rule on this writ petition on 12th November, 2009, a Division Bench of this Court granted interim relief in terms of prayer (b). As a result thereof, implementation of the order of the Tribunal remained stayed.

3. The writ petition is listed today for final hearing. Mr. Ramamurthy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, at the outset has placed before us a notice dated 21st July, 2021 issued by the Director of Education, Union Territory Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu in his capacity as an Inquiry Officer calling upon the respondent to attend a preliminary hearing on 28th July, 2021.

4. The Tribunal's order of quashing of the order of penalty having been stayed by the Division Bench, we wonder how there could be an inquiry into the respondent's conduct without such stay order being vacated. The effect of the order of stay is that the order of penalty continues to remain effective. Proceedings having been concluded by the order of penalty, there can be no further enquiry into the same charges.

5. In such view of the matter, we stay the notice dated 21st July, 2021 despite the fact that such notice is not on record by way of an affidavit and has been tendered across the bar. We also restrain the Enquiry Officer from proceeding further.

6. Mr. Venegaonkar, learned advocate for the petitioners shall obtain instructions by the next date as regards justification for issuance of the said notice 21st July, 2021. Both parties shall return fully prepared to argue this writ petition

11-WP-517-2009

finally on Wednesday next i.e. 27th October, 2021, to be listed high on board.

                        (M. S. KARNIK, J.)               (CHIEF JUSTICE)
          Digitally
          signed by
          PRAVIN
PRAVIN    DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT    Date:
          2021.10.21
          13:54:30
          +0530