The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Chandrakant Keshaorao Borkar
2023 Latest Caselaw 10845 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:15485-DB
                                               1                          WP-7068-2023.odt


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                WRIT PETITION NO.7068 OF 2023


                The State of Maharashtra,
                through its Additional Chief Secretary,
                Revenue and Forest Department,
                Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.                       ... Petitioners


                     Versus


                Chandrakant Keshaorao Borkar                         ... Respondent


                Shri M.K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for Petitioners.


                        CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ., AND
                                  A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                        DATE    : 19th OCTOBER, 2023


                PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

petitioner-State Authorities and perused the record available

before us on this writ petition.

2. The petitioner-State Authorities by instituting this petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have assailed the

judgment and order dated 29 th June, 2022 passed by the Nagpur

Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short,

hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Original 2 WP-7068-2023.odt

Application bearing No.755 of 2020 filed by the respondent has

been allowed and the chargesheet/Inquiry No.34 of 2016

initiated against him has been quashed.

3. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader that the judgment passed by the Tribunal,

which is under challenge in this writ petition, is vitiated for the

reason that though it is based on the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Versus

Registrar, High Court of Delhi, AIR 2016 SC 101 , however, the

principles laid down in the said judgment have not been

appropriately appreciated by the Tribunal; rather the same have

been misconstrued. The submission, in this regard, of the

learned Assistant Government Pleader is, firstly, that the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979

do not prescribe any time-limit for conclusion of the enquiry and,

secondly, that in any case the enquiry was completed on

6th November, 2020, which fact was suppressed by the

respondent before the Tribunal.

4. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that

every delay in conducting the enquiry will not vitiate the enquiry

or make it void and since in this case the enquiry was completed

on 6th November 2020, i.e. before the Tribunal pronounced the 3 WP-7068-2023.odt

judgment, the ground on which the Tribunal has quashed the

disciplinary proceedings against the respondent was not

available. It has also been urged by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra) is an opinion and,

therefore, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the said

decision is misconceived.

5. We have given our conscious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader

representing the petitioner-State Authorities.

6. The respondent was appointed on the post of

Naib Tahsildar in the year 1990, whereafter he was promoted on

the post of Tahsildar in the year 1997. He was promoted further

on the post of Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer in the

year 2008 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired

from service on 31st August, 2015.

7. On 28th August, 2015, a chargesheet levelling certain

allegations against the respondent was drawn, which was served

upon him only on the day he retired from service, i.e. on

31st August, 2015. The respondent submitted his reply to the

chargesheet on 13th October 2015. However, the Enquiry Officer

to conduct the enquiry was appointed almost after an year from 4 WP-7068-2023.odt

the day the respondent retired, i.e. on 30 th July, 2016. Even the

Presenting Officer to conduct the enquiry against the respondent

on behalf of the State Authorities was appointed on

10th August, 2016.

8. When the enquiry was not completed, the respondent

instituted the proceedings of Original Application No.755 of

2020 before the Tribunal with the prayer that on account of

inordinate delay which has occurred at the instance of the

petitioner-State Authorities in conducting the enquiry, the

proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry are vitiated and hence

the same are liable to be quashed. The Tribunal having

considered the entire matter placed before it came to the

conclusion, by passing the impugned judgment, that the enquiry

being conducted, the respondent suffered from the vice of

inordinate delay and hence the enquiry proceedings have been

quashed.

9. The Tribunal while relying upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra) has

also returned a finding in the judgment under challenge in the

instant writ petition that the charges against the respondent into

which the departmental enquiry was being held, entail minor

penalty. It has also been held by the Tribunal in the impugned 5 WP-7068-2023.odt

judgment that prolonging the enquiry proceedings for such a

long period of about seven years, that too in relation to the

charges entailing minor penalty, cannot be approved of and

hence has quashed the proceedings against the respondent by

passing the impugned judgment.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has emphatically

argued that the enquiry against the respondent was completed

on 6th November, 2020 and the enquiry report was served on him

on 22nd February, 2021, however, this fact was suppressed by the

respondent before the Tribunal. He has thus stated that the

enquiry having been completed on 6th November, 2020, i.e. much

before the judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal on 29 th

June, 2022, was a relevant factor which the Tribunal has not

taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment.

11. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioner-State Authorities

is completely misconceived. The completion of disciplinary

proceedings does not mean preparation of enquiry report by the

Enquiry Officer. It is not that in the instant case the

departmental proceedings were completed on

6th November, 2020; rather it is the enquiry report which was

prepared by the Enquiry Officer on 6 th November, 2020, which 6 WP-7068-2023.odt

was served upon the respondent on 22nd February, 2021. The

completion of departmental proceedings and submission of

enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer are two different things

and both appear to have been misunderstood by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader as one.

12. It is also to be noticed that the chargesheet in this case was

prepared only three days prior to the retirement of the

respondent, which was served upon him on the day he retired. It

is also noticeable that the charges against the respondent, as

reflected from the chargesheet, entail only minor penalty in the

event they are proved for the reason that the charges are not

grave enough to attract any of the major penalties. It is true,

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Versus

N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154, has held that there are no

predetermined principles to hold that the departmental

proceedings are vitiated on account of delay in all situations,

however as to whether the departmental proceedings are vitiated

on account of delay has to be inferred on the basis of the facts of

each case. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned,

which are not in dispute, the chargesheet contained minor

charges, the chargesheet was prepared against the respondent

only three days before his retirement, it was served upon him on 7 WP-7068-2023.odt

the day he retired and further, even time of one year was taken

by the State Authorities to appoint the Enquiry Officer and the

Presenting Officer.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions,

dragging departmental proceedings in respect of minor

allegations for a period of seven years after the Government

servant retires, cannot be approved of. As already noticed above,

the date on which the enquiry report was prepared and

submitted, i.e. on 6th November, 2020, cannot be said to be the

date of completion of the departmental proceedings. In this

view, the submission made by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader that the respondent had suppressed any material fact is

not tenable. Even, till the pronouncement of the judgment by

the Tribunal, final decision was not taken in the departmental

proceedings drawn against the respondent.

14. The delay in conducting the enquiry which has occurred in

this case has naturally caused sufferings to the respondent who

retired way back on 31st August, 2015. As held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra), it is the

duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental enquiry

initiated against a delinquent employee is conducted within the

shortest possible time by taking priority measures. Such 8 WP-7068-2023.odt

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court assume more

significance in case the departmental proceedings are to be

drawn against a retired employee, that too, for enquiring into the

allegations which are not so grave rather are minor in nature.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground

to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal, which is

under challenge in this writ petition.

16. The writ petition is, thus, hereby dismissed. However,

there will be no order as to costs.

                                       (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)                   (CHIEF JUSTICE)

                         LANJEWAR




Signed by: Prashant D. Lanjewar
Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary
Date: 20/10/2023 19:03:10