Bombay High Court
Sevaram S/O Shravanji Hedaoo vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:16709-DB
1 WP554.22 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 554 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Sevaram S/o Shravanji Hedaoo,
Aged 56 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Plot No. 40, Jai Bajrang Society,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440 013.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through Deputy General Manager
(Monitoring Committee No.3), having office
at Office Quarters, Jadhav Square,
Behind S.T. Bus Stand, Ganeshpeth,
Nagpur - 440 018.
2] Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
S. T. Chandrapur, having office at MSRTC,
Chandrapur Divisional Office, Tadoba Road,
Chandrapur.
3] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
through its Vice President and Managing
Director (Authorized Officer),
Maharashtra Regional Transport Bhawan,
Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai - 400 008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Charpe, Advocate for the respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI and
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Smt.Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)
2 WP554.22 (J).odt
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :
(a) by a suitable writ, order or direction, quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-T)
issued by respondent no.1 directing recovery of the salary
amount of the petitioner and ordering a separate enquiry
to be conducted against the petitioner for his physical
absence from office during the period of lockdown
mentioned therein, and the subsequent communication
dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-U) issued by the respondent
no.2 recovering the said salary amount from the salary of
the petitioner ;
(d-i) quash and set aside the proposed inquiry which is to be
conducted on the basis of the show cause notice issued by
the respondents to the petitioner dated 24.08.2022.
3. The petitioner is working as a 'Mechanical Engineer'
(Operations) with respondent no.1 since year 1996 and he is a Class-I
officer. He was posted at Chandrapur during the outbreak of Covid-19
pandemic. It is not in dispute that on 23.03.2020, Government of
Maharashtra had declared lockdown in the entire State with immediate
effect, till 31.03.2020. The Central Government also declared
lockdown on 25.03.2020, which was extended from time to time till
3 WP554.22 (J).odt
03.05.2020 due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. The workshop at
Chandrapur, where the petitioner was posted, was closed down w.e.f.
24.03.2020. The petitioner proceeded to his home town during the
period of lockdown. By communication dated 30.04.2020, he was
directed to report to work. He availed leave from 01.05.2020 till
08.05.2020 and joined duties on 23.05.2020 after 14 days mandatory
quarantine. The petitioner was paid salary during the time he was at his
home town, which is now sought to be recovered on the ground that
the petitioner had left the headquarters without prior permission and
further, by notice dated 24.08.2022, issued during the pendency of the
petition, the petitioner is called upon to give his explanation as to why
enquiry should not be conducted for alleged misconduct viz. leaving
the headquarters without prior permission.
4. We have perused the record and heard Mrs. Radhika Bajaj,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Charpe, learned counsel
for respondent nos.1 to 3.
5. It is not in dispute that in the wake of outbreak of Covid -
19 Pandemic, the State of Maharashtra had imposed lockdown during
4 WP554.22 (J).odt
the period from 23.03.2020 to 30.03.2020. The Central Government
had declared lockdown on 25.03.2020, which was extended from time
to time till 03.05.2020. The respondents have not disputed the fact
that the employees and the officers were permitted to work from home
during the lockdown period. There is no specific denial that the
petitioner was permitted to work from home during the lockdown
period and that he, in fact, worked from home till 30.04.2020.
6. By notice dated 30.04.2020, the petitioner was called
upon to resume duty. He was sanctioned leave from 01.05.2020 till
08.05.2020. Nagpur, the home town of the petitioner, was at the
relevant time in Red Zone category, in view of the risk factor.
Consequently, as per the guidelines-SOP issued by the Government,
the travel/movement was restricted. As per the prevalent rules, the
petitioner had to apply for travel E-pass for travelling from Nagpur to
Chandrapur, which was in Orange zone category. He also obtained
medical certificate and sought relaxation of quarantine period and after
the mandatory quarantine period of 14 days, the petitioner resumed
duties on 22.05.2020.
5 WP554.22 (J).odt
7. It is thus admitted that during the entire lockdown period,
excluding the period during which the petitioner was on leave, he
worked from home. In such circumstances, the proposed recovery of
salary paid to the petitioner for the period, during which he was on
leave or during the period he had rendered services, is impermissible.
Hence, in our view, the action proposed against the petitioner is
perverse, arbitrary and totally unjustifiable.
8. The petitioner has also challenged notice dated
24.08.2022, issued during the pendency of the petition to show cause
as to why action should not be taken against him for leaving the
headquarters without prior permission. We are conscious of the fact
that the Court should not ordinarily quash a show cause notice in
disciplinary proceedings, unless it is satisfied that the basis on which the
disciplinary proceedings are initiated or the notice is issued, is bad and/
or such notice does not prima facie disclose any such misconduct which
necessitates disciplinary action.
9. As noted above, the workshop, wherein the petitioner was
working, was shut down and the petitioner was permitted to work from
6 WP554.22 (J).odt
home during the lockdown period. The petitioner has placed on record
correspondence dated 02.08.2021 addressed by his superior officer to
the Vigilance Officer at Chandrapur, wherein he has specifically stated
that the petitioner was given oral permission to leave the headquarters.
The fact that Mr. Rajendra Patil, the Superior officer of the petitioner,
had conveyed to the Vigilance Officer that the petitioner was granted
oral permission to leave headquarters, has not been disputed. In the
'written submissions' signed by the counsel for the respondents and
affirmed by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Chandrapur, it is stated
that the superior officer Mr. Rajendra Patil, who was due for retirement,
must have issued the letter dated 02.08.2021 to support the case of the
petitioner. The superior officer had retired on 31.08.2021. No
explanation or clarification was sought from him though he was
available in the office. It is thus evident that the show cause notice
proceeds on a presumption that the superior officer might have given
the said letter to help the petitioner. Disciplinary inquiry on the basis
of presumption cannot be countenanced.
10. It is also relevant to note that there is considerable delay in
issuing the said show cause notice. Moreover, the show cause notice
7 WP554.22 (J).odt
was issued during the pendency of this petition and after this Court had
granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. All these facts give an
indication that the action proposed to be taken against the petitioner is
not bona fide.
11. The petitioner has rendered services since 1996. He is due
for retirement on 31.12.2023. The record indicates that he had worked
from home during the lockdown period. The material on record also
shows that he had left the headquarters and gone to his home town with
oral permission of his superior officer. In such circumstances, we are of
the considered view that the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 as well
as the notice dated 24.08.2022, which does not disclose any
misconduct, are perverse, arbitrary and not sustainable.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (d-i). The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/12/2023 16:07:05
