Bombay High Court
Rajendra Vinayak Sonwane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:308
23-wp-2513-2010 judg.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2513 OF 2010
Rajendra s/o Vinayak Sonwane
Age 48 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Nibhora, Tq. Amalner,
District Jalgaon. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Under Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon. ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Sonkawade a/w. Shubham S. Kote
i/b Mr. A.V. Hon
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.S. Sonawane
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 08, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for contesting respondent no.3.
2. The facts in brief were that the petitioner was the Gram
Sevak who joined his services on 02.04.1984. Since he was
unauthorizedly absent, the charge sheet was served upon him on
23-wp-2513-2010 judg.odt
10.09.2005. The petitioner admitted his absence and explained that
his absence was beyond his control. However, respondent no.3
holding him guilty for his misconduct, imposed the punishment of
termination from the services. The petitioner had impugned the order
of respondent no.3 before the Divisional Commissioner. The
Divisional Commissioner set aside the punishment of termination and
withheld two increments without back-wages on 17.12.2007. Against
the said order, respondent no.3 preferred review before the Under
Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Under Secretary reversed the order of the
Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of
the Under Secretary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the punishment is disproportionate to the faults of the petitioner.
The doctrine of proportionality has not been applied. The punishment
of termination was arbitrary and against the rule of natural justice.
Now, the petitioner has been superannuated. Since the punishment is
against the doctrine of proportionality, he prayed to quash and set
aside the order of Chief Executive Officer which the Under Secretary
has confirmed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has
strongly opposed the arguments of the petitioner. He would submit
that by mistake, the nomenclature of the petition before the Under
23-wp-2513-2010 judg.odt
Secretary was incorrectly mentioned as review, in fact, it was a
revision. He would submit that the punishment imposed upon the
petitioner was proportionate. His explanation for his absence was
correctly not accepted. To maintain the discipline in the office, such
punishments are proper. There are no illegalities in the impugned
orders. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. A small question that arise for determination is whether
the punishment of termination is proportionate to the fault of the
petitioner.
6. It is trite that the punishment to the employee at fault
should be proportionate for the faults committed by him. In this case,
the petitioner has fairly admitted his absence and explained that his
absence was beyond his control. The Divisional Commissioner also
did not accept his explanation and withheld his two increments
without back-wages. The facts of the case of Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar
Choudhuri and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620, which the petitioner
relied upon are identical to the facts of the case. In para 19 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well recognized
concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise
within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-
maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct
23-wp-2513-2010 judg.odt
stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial
intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion
to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in access to
the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for
interference under limited scope of judicial review."
7. Para 21 is more relevant which reads thus :
"21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the
delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months
but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his
guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he
did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of
higher authority or violate any of the Company's rules and
regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his
control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was
not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified,
since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have
imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances.
The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to
the allegations."
8. Reading the order of the Chief Executive Officer and the
Under Secretary, Maharashtra State, it is apparent that the
punishment for the faults of the petitioner is disproportionate and the
punishment imposed by the Divisional Commissioner appears
23-wp-2513-2010 judg.odt
proportionate. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore,
the following order :
ORDER
I) Writ Petition is allowed.
II) The Order of the Under Secretary, Rural Development and
Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated
22.10.2008 stands quashed and set aside.
III) The order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik passed in
Appeal No.69 of 2006 dated 22.05.2007 is restored.
IV) No order as to costs.
V) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
Signed by: Syed Mujaheed Naseer
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2024 19:04:09
