Bombay High Court
Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane vs State Of Maha. Urban Development ... on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:12645-DB
Rane 1/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15949 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3354 OF 2023
Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane .....Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .....Respondents
----
Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ranjit Agashe, Ms.
Namrata Agashe and Mr. Saurabh Mandlik i/by. Ms. Pavitra
Manesh, Advocate for the petitioner-applicant.
Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for State- respondent no.1.
Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 24th APRIL, 2023.
P.C. :
1. We have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.
Rane 2/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
2. The petitioner challenges (i)the order of
suspension; and (ii)the chargesheet in the Departmental
Enquriy.
3. It is the contention of Mr. Shaikh, learned Senior
Advocate that the Departmental Enquiry has commenced
based on the chargesheet. As far as the charge with regard to
the correction of the date of birth in the school record is
concerned, the same was effectuated more than nine years
prior to the petitioner taking up employment with the
respondent.
4. The learned Counsel further submits that as far as
criminal case filed with regard to the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, no
decision can be arrived at in the Departmental Enquiry when
the criminal case is pending.
5. It is further submitted that while granting bail, the
learned Single Judge of this Court had come to the prima-facie
conclusion in favour of petitioner and had thereafter granted
interim bail to the petitioner.
6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the the petitioner is victimised time and
again ever he was confirmed in service in the year 2007. The
respondents started victimising him on one count or other.
False and frivolous charges are leveled against him. Earlier
also, petitioner came in the zone of consideration for
promotion. Though the petitioner was exonerated still the
Rane 3/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
subsequent Commissioner took up disciplinary proceedings
on the same charges. The petitioner had to approach this
Court. This Court had to stay the disciplinary proceedings. It
is further submitted that immediately upon confirmation of
the petitioner in service, a Resolution was passed on
20.06.2007 resolving to terminate the petitioner's services.
Against the same, petitioner had to approach this Court and
pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, the
petitioner was continued in service. The petitioner was
taking action against the illegal and unauthorised
construction, hawkers and even he took action against the
erstwhile Deputy Mayor. Because of all this, the petitioner
was sought to be cornered. The petitioner's car which was
parked in the premises of the Corporation, was set on fire.
The petitioner was given threats of life and death. The
petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1448/2016 and sought
police protection. This Court granted police protection to the
petitioner. The ex-Chairman of the Standing Committee Mr.
Pappu Kalani, against whom various cases under TADA were
filed, personally attacked the petitioner. The petitioner
sought to file criminal case and those concerned were
arrested. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as the
petitioner is victimised the chargesheet deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7. It is further submitted by the learned Senior
Advocate that the order of suspension cannot withstand
Rane 4/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
judicial scrutiny. The chargesheet having not been served
within 90 days, the suspension could not have been
continued. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union
of India, Through its Secretary and Anr. AIR 2015 SCC 2389. It
is further submitted that the petitioner is discriminated
against other persons against whom grave charges of
corruption and other provisions are concerned, are pending.
They were also reinstated by revoking the suspension. The
illustrations are given in the rejoinder Affidavit to that effect.
8. It is further contended that the order of
suspension is not confirmed by the Corporation. On the said
count, it deserves to be set aside. Reliance is placed on
Section 56 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
Learned Counsel submits that on/or about 4.04.2022 the
General Body of the Corporation was not in existence and the
Commissioner is vested with the powers of the General Body.
9. We have considered the submissions. The
chargesheet cannot be assailed unless it is demonstrated that
the same is issued by a non-competent person. The charge
whether the petitioner had given false promise of service in
the Corporation or not, is a subject matter of enquiry. It is
only upon evidence being adduced and the enquiry report
being received, further steps can be undertaken. Petitioner is
facing serious charges. The allegations are to be proved. We
have been told that the enquiry is at the fag end. The
Rane 5/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
evidence is concluded in the Departmental Enquiry. The
enquiry report is awaited. The enquiry has already
concluded. In view of that, now it would not be worthwhile
to consider the contentions of the petitioner. Moreover, it is
not the case of the petitioner that the chargesheet was issued
by an incompetent authority. Though petitioner has leveled
allegations against various authorities/persons, none of them
are impleaded in their personal capacity. On that count also,
no interference is called for with regard to chargesheet.
10. As far as suspension is concerned, reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Chaudhary (supra) may
not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner is
suspended on/or about 11.03.2022 during the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings. The Departmental Enquiry has
continued further. The evidence has concluded. In the case of
Ajay Chaudhary (supra), the Supreme Court did not quash the
suspension as the enquiry had proceeded further.
11. As it is stated from 04.04.2022 onwards, the
General Body is not in existence, confirmation of the
suspension order issued by the Commissioner, by General
Body in view of compliance of Section 56 of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, now is not possible. Be that as it
may, the evidence in the Departmental Enquiry has already
concluded. The respondents are required to conclude the
entire proceedings expeditiously. It is submitted by the
learned Counsel for the Corporation that within 15 days the
Rane 6/6 50-WP-15949-2022.odt
enquiry report may be received. The copy of the enquiry
report be forwarded to the petitioner immediately. The
petitioner may file reply upon receipt of the enquiry report,
preferably within 15 days and the Disciplinary Authority may
take decision, preferably within one month from the date of
receipt of the enquiry report.
12. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations. Depending upon the result of the Disciplinary
Authority, further steps shall be undertaken by the parties.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
