The State Of Maharashtra, The. ... vs Pradeep Lalsingh Pawar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11062 Bom

         69-WP-6353-22-                                                                           1/4


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6353 OF 2022

         PETITIONERS :-               1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
                                         Secretary,  Revenue     and    Forest
                                         Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400
                                         032.

                                      2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its
                                         Secretary, Food and Supplies and
                                         Consumer     Protection   Department,
                                         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

                                      3. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
                                         Division, By pass road Camp, Amravati
                                         Dist.Amravati.

                                      4. Divisional Enquiry Officer, Amravati,
                                         Division Amravati, C/o. Divisional
                                         Commissioner Office, By pass road, Camp
                                         Amravati, Dist.Amravati.

                                              ...VERSUS...

         RESPONDENT :-                      Pradeep Lalsingh Pawar, Aged about 50
                                            years, Occup. Service as Tahsildar
                                            Murizapur, Tah.Murtizapur, Dist.Akola.

         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Mr.N.S.Rao, AGP for the petitioners.
                             Mr.V.B.Gawali, counsel for respondent.
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
                                                           ANIL L.PANSARE, JJ.

                                            DATE         : 19.10.2022.


Kavita
          69-WP-6353-22-                                                 2/4




         ORAL      J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)

         (1)         Heard.



         (2)         Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3) The only contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent is that due to pendency of the departmental enquiry,

promotion to the next higher post has been denied to the

respondent, who is presently working as Tahsildar and this is

evident from the fact that promotion order has been issued to

several other officers, who are placed below the respondent in the

seniority list. This is how, learned counsel for the respondent,

submits that prejudice has been caused to the respondent due to

pendency of the departmental enquiry proceedings.

(4) We are not inclined to accept the argument for the

reason that there is no order whatsoever passed by the authority,

specifically denying promotion to the respondent on the ground

Kavita 69-WP-6353-22- 3/4

that any departmental enquiry is pending. On the contrary, it is

seen from the documents available on record, particularly the list

of the officers whose names were considered for promotion

during the 2019 promotion process, that name of respondent has

been kept in a sealed envelope. The learned counsel for the

respondent has no idea as to what is stated in the sealed envelope.

There is nothing on record from which this Court can infer that

the envelope contains an order of denial of promotion to the

respondent. Therefore, at this stage, we must say, that the

respondent has failed to clearly demonstrate occurrence of

prejudice to him because of the pendency of the departmental

enquiry proceedings. This aspect of the case has not been

considered in any manner by the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal while allowing the original application by the impugned

order. This is the law well settled by the Apex Court in some of

the judgments including the judgment rendered in the case of

State of M.P and anr. Vs.Akhilesh Jha and another reported in

2022(1) Mh.L.J 557.

Kavita
                                 69-WP-6353-22-                                                   4/4


                                (5)      In the result, we find merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ

Petitions is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set

aside, however, liberty is granted to the respondent to

demonstrate the case of the prejudice caused to him because of

the pendency of the departmental enquiry for a long period of

time before the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority. We

direct the disciplinary authority to pass the final order after

following due process of law as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the

order.

(6) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(ANIL L.PANSARE ,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)

Kavita Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN TAYADE P. A.

Signing Date:21.10.2022 12:08