Bombay High Court
Pravin Sudhakarrao Telang vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 16 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:1231-DB
1 wp 5052.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5052 OF 2022
Pravin s/o Sudhakarrao Telang,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Junior Clerk,
R/o : Pravin Sudhakarrao Telang,
C/o House of Ramesh B. Pawar,
Behind Krishna Mandir, SVM Colony,
Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Law and Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Through its Registrar General,
Fort 32, Fort, Mumbai -400032.
3. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded. .. Respondents
Shri Abhay R. Rathod, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 07.01.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 16.01.2025
JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of parties heard both sides finally at the admission stage.
2 wp 5052.22
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority (Principal District Judge, Nanded) in
Departmental Enquiry No. 02/2020 and order dated 14.01.2022
passed in Administrative Appeal No. A-03/2020 dismissing the
appeal.
3. The petitioner met with a penalty of reduction in rank from
the post of stenographer to the post of junior clerk and
withholding of one annual increment with permanent effect.
4. The petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk on
29.04.2002. In due course, he was promoted to the post of
stenographer lower grade on 01.12.2010. He was transferred
from Nanded to Mukhed. He alleged to have committed
misconduct resulting into disciplinary action against him. He
was served with a charge sheet. There were three major charges
leveled against him. The charge No. 1 was comprising of sub
charges of misconduct, insubordination causing inconvenience to
the Presiding Officer, negligence, unauthorized absentism, etc.
The charge No. 2 was pertaining to leaving the headquarter and
behaving indecently with the lady Judicial Officers. Last charge
No. 3 was pertaining to misconduct with the lady officers, grave
negligence and loss of confidence.
5. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order
dated 04.03.2020. Lateron it was revoked on 08.06.2020. An
3 wp 5052.22
inquiry was conducted by the learned Civil Judge Senior
Division, Mukhed. The petitioner submitted application on
08.06.2020 to the Inquiry Officer for permitting him to engage a
lawyer. It was rejected by a reasoned order on the same day.
Thereafter disciplinary enquiry proceeded further and concluded
by first impugned order imposing penalty. Being aggrieved by
the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, administrative
appeal was preferred before the Registrar General, High Court.
It was dismissed by order dated 14.01.2022.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Abhay Rathod for the petitioner
submits that the disciplinary action was conducted in utter
disregard to the principles of natural justice. The Presiding
Officer was a judicial officer, witnesses were also judicial officers.
Hence it was imperative to permit him to engage a lawyer. The
order passed by the inquiry officer on 12.10.2020 is perverse and
patently illegal. The petitioner was under pressure and unable
to defend before the inquiry officer. It is further submitted that
confidential report dated 08.07.2019 was not supplied to him. No
reasoned order was passed by the appellate authority. He would
further submit that only interested witnesses were examined.
Three judicial officers were not examined by the department. He
would further submit that there was no sufficient material before
the disciplinary authority. No preliminary inquiry was
conducted. There is violation of mandatory provision governing
disciplinary action. It is further submitted that previous
conduct was considered while imposing penalty. Lastly, it is
submitted that the penalty imposed is disproportionate and
4 wp 5052.22
unreasonable.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. N. B. Khandare would rely
on the affidavit in reply. He would submit that order dated
12.10.2020 was not challenged by the petitioner. The confidential
report dated 08.07.2019 was taken into consideration. The
petitioner was given opportunity to correct himself. Again the
confidential letters dated 20.12.2019 and 03.01.2020 were
received. It is submitted that after conducting the preliminary
inquiry, the disciplinary action was initiated. Due procedure of
law was followed by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority.
8. Mr. Khandare, learned counsel would further submit that
petitioner admitted all the charges which is evident from the
inquiry report. There is overwhelming material against the
petitioner. There are concurrent findings on facts. No case is
made out to cause any interference in the writ jurisdiction.
Though the petitioner was liable for harsher punishment,
sympathetic view was taken in imposing the punishment.
9. We have considered rival submissions of the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner harped upon the
order of rejection of application seeking permission to engage a
lawyer and non supply of documents. It is predominantly
submitted that only interested witnesses were examined and the
petitioner was unable to deal with the witnesses being
5 wp 5052.22
subordinate officer. The previous conduct taken into account is
criticized being extraneous.
11. At the outset, it is relevant to note that three charges were
leveled against the petitioner. Inquiry was conducted by the Civil
Judge Senior Division. In all ten witnesses were examined.
There were confidential reports against the petitioner. He was
found guilty of all the charges. He had admitted charge in his
plea. There are concurrent findings on facts.
12. The scope of the High Court in the writ jurisdiction while
examining disciplinary action is very limited. In case of violation
of principles of natural justice, violation of statutory and
mandatory provisions and perversity on the face of the record,
indulgence can be shown. High Court cannot go into the
sufficiency of the material or propriety or disputed questions of
facts.
13. The inquiry report placed on record, discloses that all the
charges were admitted by the petitioner. The plea of the
petitioner was recorded on 17.03.2020, which is at Exhibit - R -
9. We have gone through the same. There is endorsement of the
petitioner for verification of his answers. Despite that, inquiry
officer, out of abundant precaution, conducted inquiry. This
indicates that necessary precaution was taken to extend
opportunity of hearing.
14. The witnesses were examined and opportunity was given to
6 wp 5052.22
the petitioner to cross examine them. It would be the prerogative
of the employer to examine the witnesses. The delinquent cannot
insist that three judicial officers should have been examined.
There was oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the
guilt and the charges leveled against him. It is not a case that
without there being any material against him, the petitioner was
held guilty. We do not find that there is any defect in the
procedure adopted by the inquiry officer in conducting the
inquiry.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out
as to which statutory provision was violated in conducting the
inquiry. When the petitioner was acting as a stenographer in the
court and associated with the judicial officers, the witnesses are
bound to be judicial officers. No leverage can be extended to the
petitioner on the ground that he was subordinate to the
witnesses or inquiry officer.
16. The petitioner's application dated 08.06.2020 was rejected
by a reasoned order passed on 12.10.2020 denying permission to
engage a lawyer. We do not find any perversity in rejecting the
application. It is apposite to reproduce following provision of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979
(for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to
the 'Rules of 1979')
7 wp 5052.22
The Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1979.
1. ..........
2. .........
8. Procedure for imposing major penalties.--(1)....
(2) ...........
(8)(a) The Government servant may take the assistance of any
other Government servant posted in any office either at his
headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the
case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the
purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary
authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having
regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits :
Provided that the Government servant may take the
assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other
station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances
of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, so permits.
17. The Presenting Officer was not a law graduate. The
petitioner had refused to take assistance of next friend or
government servant. It was the discretion of the disciplinary
authority to grant permission to engage a lawyer or not. We do
not find that there is violation of principles of natural justice.
18. The petitioner tried to make capital of consideration of
previous record. While imposing penalty previous conduct of the
petitioner was taken into account. The previous conduct is
relevant to determine nature of penalty. The previous conduct
was not considered for finding the petitioner guilty for the
charges leveled against him. We find no substance in the
8 wp 5052.22
submission of the petitioner in this regard.
19. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of the Gujrat High Court judgment dated
09.01.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12000 of
2022 in the matter of Divyesh Govindbhai Kunvariya Vs.
State of Gujrat. We have gone through paragraph No. 10 of the
judgment. However, we are unable to concur with the
propositions. It was a judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge considering the service rules applicable in Gujrat state.
Present case is governed by Rule 8 of the Rules of 1979, which
was not before the learned Single Judge of the Gujrat High
Court. This judgment would be of no assistance to the petitioner.
20. The appellate authority also considered relevant aspect of
matter. After hearing the petitioner, the order was confirmed by
rejecting appeal. There are concurrent findings of facts. No case
is made out by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
Rule stands discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ S. G. MEHARE, J. ]
bsb/Jan. 25
