Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... vs Ashok S/O Pandurangji Dandge And ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
1 wp 1495.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Civil Application (W) No.43/2024 in Writ Petition No.1495/2022
(the State of Maharashtra V Ashok and another)
Writ Petition No.1040/2022
(VIDC, Yavatmal V Ashok and another)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Madiwale, AGP for petitioner/applicants in Civil Application (W) No.43/2024.
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
CORAM : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ
DATE : 29-01-2024.
The challenge in the petition is to the order
dated 05-01-2021 delivered in Original Application
Nos.959/2019 and 11/2020.
2. In Original Application, the prayer of the
petitioner was for quashing the inquiry as the same was
not concluded within reasonable period and also other
similarly placed employees were exonerated. As far as
Original Application No.11/2020 is concerned, the prayer
therein pertains to placing of his case before the DPC in a
sealed cover as the inquiry was pending.
3. The Tribunal vide impugned order has allowed
both these Original Applications and granted relief as
prayed in prayer clause (2) of paragraph 8, which reads
thus :-
2 wp 1495.22.odt
"(1) ******
(2) further be pleased to exonerate the applicant from all the
charges levelled against him vide charge sheet dated 23rd of
March 2018;
(3) ***** "
4. Similarly, Original Application No.11/2020 came
to be allowed with directions to the petitioner to consider
the case of the respondent employee as per the
Government Resolution dated 15-12-2017 and take
suitable decision within 60 days.
5. We are informed that the Contempt Petition is
already initiated by the respondent employee.
6. It is not in dispute that the chargesheet was
served by the respondent on 23-03-2018 and respondent
employer has submitted reply on 13-11-2019.
7. In the meantime, the other delinquents who
were similarly chargesheeted were exonerated by
considering their reply.
8. As the petitioner was not satisfied with the
stand taken by the respondent employee, the petitioner
decided to proceed against the respondent
departmentally.
9. The Tribunal while dealing with the case of the
respondent employee, for the following reasons, has
3 wp 1495.22.odt
allowed the Original Applications; (a) that similarly placed
employees were exonerated and (b) the inquiry is delayed
without there being any reasonable cause which goes
contrary to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the matter of Prem Nath Bali v/s Registrar, High
Court of Delhi and another, reported in AIR 2016 SC
101 which is further followed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.7068/2023 (State of Maharashtra and others v/s
Chandrakant) decided on 19-10-2023. His further
contentions are that for the first time the Enquiry Officer
was appointed in August, 2021 which fact also prevailed
before the Tribunal to grant the relief.
10. The fact remains that the Tribunal has lost sight
of the fact that the respondent employee may be for the
reasons beyond his control has filed his reply on
13-11-2019 i.e. almost after a period of more than one
and half years of service of chargesheet.
11. Thereafter, in view of CORONA-19 Pandemic
there was a lock-down and as such the petitioner appears
to have appointed an Enquiry Officer in the year 2021.
12. In such an eventuality, in our opinion, it cannot
be said that the case of the respondent employee is
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Prem Nath (supra). That being so, we stay the
4 wp 1495.22.odt
further proceedings against the petitioners/applicants, so
also the order of the Tribunal which is impugned herein.
13. We further direct the Executive Director of the
statutory Corporation to file an affidavit, thereby
explaining the defaults noted by the Tribunal in its order
on the part of the employer and the period within which
the enquiry against the respondent employee will be
taken to its logical end.
14. List both the matters on 12-02-2024.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/01/2024 17:31:07
