Bombay High Court
Sanjay M. Bhagwat vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Addi. ... on 11 April, 2022
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
29. WP 4241.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by URMILA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
URMILA PRAMOD
INGALE
PRAMOD Date:
INGALE 2022.04.13
10:50:58
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2022
Sanjay M. Bhagwat .. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr. V. M. Thorat a/w Mr. M. V. Thorat, Mr. Amar
Bodke and Mr. Gajanan Kukde, for Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: APRIL 11, 2022
P.C.:
Original Application No. 780 of 2020 instituted by the
petitioner, before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short), failed.
The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated December 14,
2021 declined interference with the charge-sheet dated
December 10, 2020 issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary
authority.
The charge-sheet refers to an incident dated March 3,
2009. The allegation is regarding inappropriate handling of an
electronic voting machine by the petitioner in respect whereof
he figured as an accused in a First Information Report that
was registered. He obtained anticipatory bail from the Court
of Sessions Judge. Ultimately, the Government of
Maharashtra did not grant sanction to prosecute the
petitioner. There is also a decision dated November 2, 2018
Urmila Ingale, PS
29. WP 4241.22
of the Government deciding against initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. It is not disputed at this
stage that this decision dated November 2, 2018 was not
communicated to the Election Commission of India (hereafter
"the Commission", for short). On or about November 4, 2020,
the Deputy Election Commissioner addressed a letter to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai
expressing shock at the Government's attempt to shield the
petitioner. While reiterating an earlier decision taken on April
23, 2019, the Deputy Election Commissioner informed the
Chief Secretary that he had been directed to ask the
Government of Maharashtra to initiate departmental enquiry
against the petitioner for imposition of major penalty within
the next seven (7) days, failing which the Commission would
seek appearance of the Chief Secretary before the
Commission along with the concerned Secretary
(Appointments) to explain as to why the Government is
defying the Commission's directions and decide further course
of action.
Prima facie, it appears to us that to avoid the
consequence of further disobedience of the directions of the
Commission, the impugned charge-sheet dated December 10,
2020 was issued. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry officer was
appointed who has concluded the enquiry and submitted a
report holding the petitioner guilty of the several charges
levelled against him. The disciplinary authority has forwarded
the enquiry report to the petitioner seeking his comments
thereon. This is the present stage of the disciplinary
proceedings.
Urmila Ingale, PS
29. WP 4241.22
Urgent circulation of this writ petition was obtained by
Mr. Thorat, learned advocate for the petitioner apprehending
disciplinary action. It is submitted by Mr. Thorat that the
impugned charge-sheet was issued 15 days prior to the
petitioner's retirement on superannuation. It is also contended
by him that during the proceedings before the enquiry officer,
the petitioner has not been afforded reasonable and adequate
opportunity to defend the charges. Over and above this, the
very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings after such long
delay is challenged.
The writ petition definitely raises arguable issues.
Although not argued by Mr. Thorat, prima facie, the first and
foremost issue that we would be tasked to decide is as to
whether the disciplinary proceedings are hit by the doctrine of
dictation. Discretion in this case has not been exercised by the
petitioner's disciplinary authority; on the contrary, discretion
appears to have been exercised by the Commission and on its
dictation, to avoid the ignominy of appearance of high ranking
officers before the Commission, the charge-sheet came to be
issued.
That apart, prima facie, it is not the case of either the
State Government or the Commission, as it appears from the
letter dated November 4, 2020, that exception was taken on
October 20, 2020 by the Commission in the context of
reiteration of the Government's decision not to initiate
departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It is required
to be explained by the Commission as to what steps it did
take to impress upon the Government of Maharashtra, prior to
the letter dated April 23, 2019, on the need for initiation of
Urmila Ingale, PS
29. WP 4241.22
such proceedings against the petitioner.
However, since the Commission is not a respondent in
this writ petition, such answer cannot be obtained without
impleading the Commission and bringing it on record as
respondent.
We grant liberty to the petitioner to amend the cause
title of the writ petition by impleading the Commission as
additional respondent. Copy of the writ petition shall be
served on the Commission with an intimation that this writ
petition shall be listed once again on April 27, 2022.
Till May 6, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is
earlier, there shall be an interim order to the extent that the
petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in
this writ petition, shall be at liberty to submit his comments
against the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority
and the disciplinary authority shall also be at liberty to pass
the final order on the proceedings, but if such final order is
adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be
given effect and communicated to the petitioner without
obtaining the Court's leave. The petitioner shall have a
fortnight's time to submit his comments against the enquiry
report to the disciplinary authority.
(M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Urmila Ingale, PS
