Bombay High Court
Rakesh S/O Madhukar Talmale vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:16710-DB
1 WP555.22 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 555 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Rakesh S/o Madhukar Talmale,
Aged 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o At Post Adyal, Tah. Pawani,
Dist. Bhandara 0 441 903
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2 WP555.22 (J).odt
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-Q)
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-R) issued by the respondent
no.2 recovering the said salary amount from the salary of
the petitioner ;
(b) direct the respondents not to recover the salary amounts
paid to the petitioner for the period of physical absence
from office during lockdown from 25.03.2020 to
08.05.2020 ;
3. The petitioner is working as a 'Divisional Statistical Officer
with respondents since year 2017 and he is a Class-II 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 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.
3 WP555.22 (J).odt
The petitioner proceeded to his home town at Bhandara during the
period of lockdown. By communication dated 30.04.2020, he was
directed to report to work. He joined duties on 13.05.2020. 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.
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 and 2.
5. It is not in dispute that in the wake of outbreak of Covid -
19 Pandemic, the State of Maharashtra had imposed lockdown during
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.
4 WP555.22 (J).odt
6. By notice dated 30.04.2020, the petitioner was called
upon to resume duty. Bhandara, the home town of the petitioner, was
at the relevant time in Orange Zone category. Since, as per the
guidelines-SOP issued by the Government, the travel/movement was
restricted, the petitioner applied for travel E-pass for travelling from
Bhandara to Chandrapur, which was in Orange zone category and he
resumed duties on 13.05.2020.
7. It is thus admitted that during the entire lockdown period,
he worked from home. In such circumstances, the proposed recovery
of salary paid to the petitioner for the period, during which he had
rendered services, is impermissible. Hence, in our view, the action
proposed against the petitioner is perverse, arbitrary and totally
unjustifiable.
8. As noted above, the workshop, wherein the petitioner was
working, was shut down and the petitioner was permitted to work from
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.
5 WP555.22 (J).odt
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 proposed action of
recovery of salary proceeds on a presumption that the superior officer
might have given the said letter to help the petitioner.
9. The petitioner has rendered services since 2017. 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 is perverse, arbitrary and
not sustainable.
6 WP555.22 (J).odt
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b). 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 16:07:56
