Dr. Prakash S/O Mahadeorao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9575 Bom

Judgment                                 1                   4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt




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

                    WRIT PETITION NO.8462 OF 2018

      Dr. Prakash S/o. Mahadeorao Hiwarkar,
      Aged 62 Yrs., Occu.: Retired Principal,
      R/o. 404, B-1, Shivraya Samruddhi Sankul,
      MHADA Flats, Amravati Road, Civil Lines,
      Nagpur- 440 001                                    .... PETITIONER

                                // VERSUS //

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Principal Secretary,
      Higher and Technical Education
      Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32

     2. The Director of Higher Education,
      State of Maharashtra, Pune

     3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
      Nagpur

     4. The Accountant General,
      Maharashtra-II, Nagpur
      Civil Line, Nagpur

     5. Shri Chaitanyeshwar Shikshan Mandal,
      Plot No. 108, Pandurang Gawande
      Nagar, Nagpur, through its Secretary
      Shri. Bhojrajji Charmode, Umred Road,
      Nagpur

    6. Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Arts and
     Commerce College, Nagpur through
     its Administrator.                       .... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
      Mr Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner
      Mr K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4
___________________________________________________________________
                     CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                              G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 21.09.2022 Judgment 2 4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1] Heard. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent.

2] Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1982, pension of retired Government Servant cannot be

withheld or withdrawn unless Government Servant is found guilty of

grave misconduct or negligence in a departmental inquiry held against

him. He submits that in this case, no departmental inquiry was ever

held and there is no authority, who has recorded any finding of the

petitioner being guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. He further

submits that the objection Nos. 1 to 4, mentioned in paragraph 8 of

the impugned order, do not exist and therefore, there is no reason,

even otherwise, to withhold or withdraw the pension of the petitioner.

3] Shri K. L. Dhamardhikari, learned Additional Government

Pleader submits that there has been an inquiry initiated against

petitioner by anti-corruption bureau into allegation of mis-

appropriation of funds of the college, received from the Government

and therefore, unless and until the inquiry is completed and the Judgment 3 4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt

petitioner is given clean cheat this Court may not entertain this

petition. He also submits that objection No.2 regarding submission of

essential documents relating to service of the petitioner needs to be

removed by the petitioner.

4] Insofar as the submission relating to the conditions

necessary for withholding or withdrawing of pension of a Government

Servant is concerned, we find great substance in the submission. Rule

27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is very clear.

It requires finding of guilt of grave misconduct or negligence in a

departmental inquiry held against the employee, which is not the case

here. Therefore, there is no authority in law for the Joint Director of

Higher Education, Nagpur Division to withhold pension of the

petitioner. Therefore, on this ground alone we are of the view that this

petition deserves to be allowed.

5] Even otherwise, the objection No.1 regarding making of

illegal appointments we must say that the Joint Director is way off the

mark. The illegal appointments were allegedly made in Hazrat Baba

Tajuddin Arts and Commerce College (For Short 'H.B.T. College') and they

pertain to appointments of Dr. Farkhunda Anis Khan as Associate Judgment 4 4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt

Professor on 10.07.1999 and one Shri. P. T. Rathod, as Peon on

01.07.1997. When these appointments were made, it is an admitted

fact, the petitioner was not working in H.B.T. College where the

appointments were made. The petitioner had worked in H.B.T.

College as its Principal with effect from 12.10.2000 to 07.08.2009 and

with effect from 08.08.2009, he was appointed as Principal of

respondent No. 5-college, that too on the basis of no objection given

by H.B.T. College. So, the petitioner had nothing do with the alleged

illegal appointments of said employees and yet, Joint Director, Nagpur

is accusing the petitioner of being responsible for making illegal

appointments. The statement so made by the Joint Director is reckless.

This is not the way how, duties and functions of the office of Joint

Director Higher Technical Education, a very responsible post, should be

discharged.

6] About the non submission of 'essential documents', we do

not understand what is exactly meant by the Joint Director. If the

petitioner, in his opinion, had not submitted 'essential documents', the

Joint Director was under a duty to specify which of the documents

were not submitted by the petitioner. Unless and until he specifies or

names the documents which are required by him, petitioner would not Judgment 5 4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt

be able to comply with the requirement. In fact, the record shows, as

can be seen from the paper book of this case and also the findings

recorded by this Bench in earlier round of litigation, which was Writ

Petition No. 1089 of 2015 (Dr. Prakash Mahadeorao Hiwarkar .v/s.

State of Maharashtra and ors.) decided on 14.06.2016 , the petitioner

had submitted all the 'essential documents'. Therefore, there was no

reason for the Joint Director, Nagpur to have taken any objection in this

respect.

7] As regards the objection No. 3, which is about non signing

of Form No. 3 by the Chairman/Secretary, we find that even this

objection does not hold any water as the From No. 3 has already been

signed by the Chairman/Secretary under his signature, a copy of which

has been filed at Page 50. About objection No. 4, regarding non

submission of the orders of the Government recognizing the concerned

colleges, we find that this objection is irrelevant and it has nothing to

do with the case of the petitioner.

8] Thus, we are of the view that on facts of the case as well

on law applicable to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled Judgment 6 4.wp.8462.2018judg.odt

to receive his pension and he must be paid the pension without any

further delay.

9] We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the

respondents to issue the pension order and also the order for payment

of all retiral dues due to the petitioner within four weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

10] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                                                 (G. A. SANAP, J.)             (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)




                                Namrata




Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:21.09.2022 17:52