Bombay High Court
Sudhakar Shriram Hudekar And Another vs Zilla Parishad Buldhana, Thr. Its Chief ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
Bench: Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
1 26-wp-7187-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7187 OF 2024
Sudhakar Shriram Hudekar and another
Versus
The Zilla Parishad Buldhana through its Chief Executive Officer,
Buldhana, Dist. Buldhana
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri S.M.Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. H.N.Jairpurkar, Advocate h/f Shri B.N.Jaipurkar,
Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR &
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 11th AUGUST, 2025.
Heard.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking declaration that
departmental inquiry initiated against them vide charge-sheet dated 16 th
April, 2019 be declared as lapsed and direct the respondents to grant all
retiral benefits including regular monthly pension, provident fund and
all other retiral dues with interest.
SKNair
2 26-wp-7187-24.odt
3. It is undisputed fact in the present matter along with
petitioner, other two employees of Zilla Parishad, Buldhana were charge-
sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 16th April, 2019.
4. It is further also not disputed that respondent Zilla Parishad
by order dated 16th March, 2020, appointed common enquiry officer to
conduct the inquiry against the present petitioner along with one Shri
J.J.Pawar and V.D.Sable.
5. During the course of hearing, petitioner has pointed out
that inquiry officer has completed the inquiry and submitted his final
report to the respondent - Zilla Parishad. Zilla Parishad in the case of
one delinquent employee namely J.J.Pawar by its order dated 22 nd
January, 2025 by accepting his affidavit, his pensionary benefits are
released subject to decision of criminal proceeding pending before the
competent criminal Court for misappropriation and Rs.1,00,000/- is
only retained subject to decision of the Criminal Court.
6. In the circumstances, it is the submission of the petitioners
that same procedure could have been adopted in the case of petitioners
and released their pensionary benefits. But same is not done by the
respondent - Zilla Parishad and hence according to them there is a
SKNair
3 26-wp-7187-24.odt
discrimination on the part of respondent - Zilla Parishad in the identical
matter.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Zilla
Parishad admitted that departmental inquiry has been completed on 1 st
February, 2024 and received the final inquiry report from the inquiry
officer. However, in view of Government Circular dated 8 th May, 1991,
the restrictions are imposed not to issue the punishment order, if the
appointing authority is of the view that delinquent employee is liable for
a minor punishment.
8. In view of above rival submissions of the parties, we have
considered the entire record and the case laws pointed out by both the
parties.
9. It is undisputed fact in the present matter that inquiry was
started against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 16th April, 2019. It
is also not disputed that petitioner no.1 has attained the age of
superannuation during the pendency of inquiry and the petitioner no.2
Shobha wife of Vinayak Sawale, who being expired, the present petition
has been filed through his wife.
SKNair
4 26-wp-7187-24.odt
10. It is well settled position of law as held by the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High
Court of Delhi and another reported in 2015(16) SCC, 415 wherein
paragraph 28 has observed as under:
28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered
opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make
sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings
once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable
time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it
should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is
not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain
unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame
then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended
period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not
more than a year.
11. In the present petition, we find that respondent - Zilla
Parishad is not justified to not take decision in the inquiry proceeding
by relying on Government Circular dated 8th May, 1991. The bare
perusal of the Government Circular dated 8th May, 1991 do not find to
be issued by applying any logic behind it. According to this circular, if
the employer wants to impose minor penalty, then till the decision of
criminal proceeding, same cannot be imposed. However, major
punishment can be imposed without waiting for the decision of criminal
SKNair
5 26-wp-7187-24.odt
court. According to us, the crietaria laid down in the Circular is
unjustified and not stand to the scrutiny of law.
12. It is a well settled position of law that departmental inquiry
and criminal proceeding can be conducted simultaneously. Meaning
thereby if the department inquiry proceeded to complete the inquiry
proceedings, it is always permissible to take decision on the basis of
report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, unless there is any contrary
order of competent Court of law. So also, there is no provision under
any statute prohibiting the employer to take decision on the
departmental inquiry once same is concluded by following due
procedure of law.
13. We prima facie found that Circular relied by the respondent
- Zilla Parishad being contrary to the settled principles of law
accordingly we hold that respondent committed manifest error by not
concluding the departmental inquiry proceeding to its logical end.
Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order.
i. The respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Buldhana is hereby directed to take immediate decision on the basis of
final inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer before him dated 1 st
SKNair
6 26-wp-7187-24.odt
February, 2024 and communicate the same to the petitioners. This
exercise should be done by the respondent within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
SKNair
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 17:15:21
