Bombay High Court
Pralhad Haribhau Sahare vs Cheif Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi, M.W.Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:8448-DB
Judgment wp969.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 969 OF 2023.
Pralhad haribhau Sahare,
Aged 61 years, Occupation -
Retired, Resident of 38,
Sadguru Nagar, Arni Road,
Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENT.
---------------------------------
Mr. R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Bhuibar, Advocate for the Respondent.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
M.W.CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 02, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up
for final disposal.
Rgd.
Judgment wp969.23
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on the
establishment of the respondent Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal w.e.f.
13.01.1986. The petitioner has been designated as a Sectional
Engineer in the year 1991, and he stood retired on completion of his
age of superannuation on 28.02.2019.
3. During service, the petitioner was served with a charge
sheet on 11.03.2003 for the charge of temporary misappropriation,
dereliction of duties, in exercise of powers under Rule 6[2] of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1964 (1964 Rules). The matter seems to have remained in the
cold storage. After retirement, the petitioner made a representation
on 31.01.2023, for releasing his retiral benefits. Since no action was
taken on the said representation, the petitioner has filed this petition.
4. During pendency of this petition, the respondent vide
communication dated 09.01.2024 has informed the petitioner that
new enquiry officer and presenting officer has been appointed in the
Rgd.
Judgment wp969.23
pending enquiry. The principal ground of challenge to the
departmental enquiry is inordinate and unexplained delay.
5. In response, the respondent has filed reply-affidavit
explaining the delay by using the term "circumstances beyond
control" and "practical difficulties". We are unable to understand
what would be the meaning of these two general terms in absence of
specific difficulty faced by the department. In substance the entire
affidavit is totally silent to explain the delay or any sort of justification
about pendency of enquiry for long two decades. Rather, it reveals
that till the retirement of the employee, the department slept over the
matter and no sooner the employee has made a demand for retiral
benefits, the department woke up by substituting the enquiry officer.
The question is whether such action of the department would be
justifiable and can it be permitted after so many years.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
decision of Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bali .vrs. Reg. High
Court of Delhi and another - [2015] 16 SCC 415, wherein the
Rgd.
Judgment wp969.23
Supreme Court has ruled that the departmental enquiry shall be
completed within 6 months and in case of exceptional difficulties, it
should be within 1 year. On the similar line, reliance is placed on the
decision of Supreme Court in case of State of A.P. .vrs. N.
Radhakishan - [1988] 4 SCC 154, and the decision of this Court in
case of Dhanraj Namdeorao Madavi .vrs. The Chief Executive Officer
and others - Writ Petition No.1557/2021 decided on 04.12.2021.
There can be no dispute regarding the said proposition. Reasonably
the enquiry has to be completed within one year, but, if there happens
to be any justifiable explanation, it has to be tested on case to case
basis.
7. It reveals that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in
the year 2003, whilst the enquiry officer was appointed for the first
time in the year 2012, and then the said enquiry officer was
substituted by another in the year2024. It appears that the
department chose to step in after one decade. In absence of a
reasonable explanation the stale action in any case cannot be
permitted to be prevailed, which would be an uncalled harassment to
Rgd.
Judgment wp969.23
the employee. It is apparent that till the date of superannuation of the
employee i.e. for near about 17 years, no action was taken and after
lapse of total 20 years, still the department is struggling with making
appointment of enquiry officer. In short, the action of the department
needs to be totally deprecated, and thus a fit case is made out to quash
the stale enquiry. In view of above, we proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
[i] Writ Petition is allowed.
[ii] We hereby quash and set aside the departmental enquiry
relating to charge sheet dated 11.03.2003, issued against
the petitioner.
[iii] Needless to mention that the respondent shall release
retiral benefits as per eligibility and entitlement of the
petitioner, as per Rules. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this order.
[iv] The Authority may take decision of payment of interest as
per the prevailing Rules and Regulations.
[v] Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/08/2024 10:56:50
