Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, ... vs Girish Purushottam Watane
2023 Latest Caselaw 1699 Bom

                                                                                               (1)                                                  59wp7476.19

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7476 OF 2019
  Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Vishorli and anr __ Vs. ___Girish Purushottam Watane
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                     Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. R.D.Wakode, Advocate for petitioner
           Mr. P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent



                                                                           CORAM :                     AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                                                           DATE  :                     20/02/2023


                                               1]                           Heard Mr. Wakode, learned counsel for the
                                               petitioner                  and           Mr.Patil,               learned               counsel                for         the
                                               respondent.


                                               2]                           It is not disputed by Mr.Wakode, learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was a permanent employee of the petitioner. He, however, contends that the conduct of the respondent indicated loss of confidence of the employer in him, as the respondent was entrusted with the job of collecting taxes, and though the same were collected, they were not deposited with the petitioner, which clearly amounted to misappropriation, according to him. He submits that 31 show cause notices were also given to the respondent, and upon failure to give a satisfactory explanation, his services were terminated.

                                 (2)                     59wp7476.19

          3]           The above position would categorically point

out that the termination has been done without conducting an enquiry, which was necessary in view of the admitted position that the respondent was a permanent employee. Both the Courts below have rightly considered this position in the impugned judgment and order, considering which, I am not inclined to interfere in the petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

4] The complaint shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made herein.

JUDGE Rvjalit

Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

Signing Date:21.02.2023 14:41