Bombay High Court
Dattu Namdeo Gadhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 8 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:227
1 11-WP.13189-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
11 WRIT PETITION NO. 13189 OF 2023
DATTU NAMDEO GADHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Khedkar Avinash S.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mrs. M. L. Sangit.
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Aghav Avinash D.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was charged for serious misconduct of
misbehaving with the Management and employees under the
influence of liquor, remaining absent without leave and causing
the educational loss of the students and also indecent
behaviour with the male and female students. The charges
were framed. The petitioner had faced the inquiry. In an
inquiry, he was hold guilty for the charges framed against him.
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
imposed the penalty under Rule 4(iv) of The Maharashtra Zilla
2 11-WP.13189-23.odt
Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and
reduced him to the lower service grade.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
argue that ground No.4 was not in the charges. It was a new
invented ground. Therefore, holding an inquiry on that ground
without the charges is illegal. He also argued that there was no
evidence to believe that the petitioner under the influence of
liquor misbehaved with the staff and the Management. None
of the charge have been specifically proved. But, under the
surmises, the charges were believed to be proved and the
penalty is also illegally imposed without specifying the period
for which he has been reduced to be lower grade. He relied on
the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10685 of 2022,
Janka Ananda Devkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary and others, dated 14.10.2022.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Chief Executive
Officer would submit that the charges were proved. The
petitioner failed to prove the charges. The evidence has been
correctly appreciated. The principle of natural justice i.e.
granting an opportunity of being heard was followed. The
charges were serious. Considering the charges, proportionate
3 11-WP.13189-23.odt
penalty has been imposed. He prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
5. Perused the impugned orders. Even if it is considered
that charge No.4 was not served upon the petitioner, there is
nothing on record to believe that the petitioner was innocent.
After having gone through the impugned orders, this Court is
satisfied that the charges levelled against the petitioner were
serious and proved as inquired under the Departmental
Inquiries. The law is well settled that the strict proof is not
required to prove the charges under the Departmental
Inquiries. However, it is trite that the penalty of rejection of a
lower service or grade cannot operate for an indefinite period.
The impugned order is defective on that point. It is necessary
for the disciplinary authority to indicate the period during
which the penalty would operate. In the case at hand, the Chief
Executive Officer did not indicate as to whether the penalty is
with cumulative effect or not. The way in which the penalty is
imposed is apparently illegal and against the provisions of the
law. Normally, in such a situation, the Court is expected to
remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing the
correct penalty. However, it has been submitted that four years
remained for the superannuation of the petitioner. In these
4 11-WP.13189-23.odt
circumstances, instead of remitting the matter only for the
purpose of imposing the correct penalty, the Court is of the
view that an appropriate penalty may be imposed. Considering
the nature of the charges proved against the petitioner and the
period of his superannuation, the Court is of the opinion that
the penalty imposed on the petitioner is correct. However, it is
modified that it shall be operational for the period of five years
from the date of penalty and thereafter, the pay of the
petitioner would stand restored.
6. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. No order as to costs.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
Signed by: Vaishali Mahesh Kale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/01/2024 18:23:10
