Samadhan S/O Vishwanath Sushir vs Deputy Engineer, Ground Water ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7314 Bom

                                                                                        (1)                                                 208.wp.575.2018

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2018
                         Samadhan s/o Vishwanath Sushir
                                       Vs.
    Deputy Engineer, Ground Water Survey and Development Agency, Amravati and
                                     another
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                     Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mrs. S. S. Jachak, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.

                                                                           CORAM :                      AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 28/07/2022

1. Mr. Dafle, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

2. The impugned judgment indicates that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Ringman from 27.3.1989. The petitioner became a permanent employee on his selection by the selection Board and was appointed as such from 11.9.1992, since which date, he was in continues service. However, since 13.11.1992, the petitioner did not report for duty. It is contended that a leave application was submitted by him which was not decided. By a notice dated 24.3.1998, the petitioner was terminated from service. No charge-sheet was issued nor any Departmental Enquiry was conducted. Though the petitioner had submitted an application under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act on 13.7.2005 i.e. after about seven years the learned Industrial Court has (2) 208.wp.575.2018

declined to reject the reference on the ground of delay, as according to it, if the petitioner succeeds on merits, he would be entitled to a molding of the relief and therefore, it was held that an Industrial dispute existed. Though it has been held in para 16 of the impugned order, that as the petitioner was a permanent employee and prior to his dismissal it was necessary to hold a Departmental Enquiry, the requirement of the same is held to have been dispensed with on account of what has been held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava 2008 (3) SCC 446 and the complaint has been dismissed on this ground. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava (supra) was a case, in which a charge-sheet was issued, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after completion of enquiry and on consideration of the enquiry report the employee was removed from service. It is therefore apparent that Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava (supra), is not a case which holds, that the holding of a Departmental Enquiry in case of a permanent employee can be dispensed with. The reliance by the learned Labour Court, therefore in Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava (supra) is clearly misplaced.

3. Mrs. Jachak, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2, seeks a short accommodation, considering which, list the matter on Monday i.e. on 1.8.2022.

Digitally signed byANANT R                                                 JUDGE
SARKATE                      Sarkate
Signing Date:29.07.2022
19:06