Bombay High Court
Ashok Rambhau Khamkar vs Chief Executive Officer Zp Ahmednagar on 30 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:2869
Ethape (1) WP-7507-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7507 OF 2017
Mr. Ashok s/o. Rambhau Khamkar
Age: 52 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Ekdare Gaothan, Tq. Akole,
District: Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
District: Ahmedngar. ...Respondent
Mr.Satyajeet S. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. Kavita S. Bhale, Advocate for the Respondent/sole.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 30th JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent
of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated
27th February 2015 passed by the learned Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik in EMP Appeal No.162 of 2013 by the present
Ethape (2) WP-7507-2017
petitioner. By way of impugned judgment and order, the learned
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner. The appeal was against the order dated 7 th September 2013
passed by the learned Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar, imposing penalty upon the petitioner of stoppage of two
increments.
3. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present petitioner are as
under:-
That the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher, Zilla
Parishad, Rampurwadi, Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar. It is the case of
the respondent that on 12th September 2011, the petitioner was found to
have come to school in drunken condition. This was noticed in the
school visit by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rahata
and Sarpanch of Rampurwadi village. A notice was therefore, issued on
11th October 2011. The petitioner came to be suspended. It was decided
to hold the enquiry on issuing notice to the petitioner. On 6 th June 2012,
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. He was directed to give an
Ethape (3) WP-7507-2017
explanation within ten days. The charges were as below:-
(i) On 12th September 2011, it was found that the petitioner
has come to school in drunken condition.
(ii) The petitioner has committed misconduct by coming to
school in drunken condition.
(iii) The petitioner vomited in the school and asked the
students to clean the floor. This act caused indiscipline in the
administration. All the charges were in violation of Rule 3 of
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment)
Rules, 1967.
4. The petitioner did not admit the charges, an enquiry was,
therefore, held by the Deputy Director (Enquiry), Nashik Division,
Nashik. The Deputy Commissioner submitted a report dated 23 rd April
2013 on holding enquiry in examining the witnesses. The learned
Deputy Commissioner submitted a report that the charges are not
proved. On receipt of this enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer
again issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 11 th June 2013. It
is stated in the said notice that, the respondent do not agree with the
enquiry report and proposes to take action. It was directed to give an
Ethape (4) WP-7507-2017
explanation. The punishment was also proposed of stoppage of two
increments as provided under Rule II of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 with permanent
effect. The explanation was called within ten days. The petitioner
submitted his explanation denying all the charges.
5. The respondent on receipt of the explanation passed an order on
7th September 2013 imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments
with permanent effect. The petitioner therefore approached the learned
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik by filing an appeal by
raising various grounds. The learned Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik however rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The
petitioner has therefore approached this Court.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently argued the
case. He submits that when the Enquiry Officer has specifically
submitted a report holding that no charges are proved still the action is
taken which is arbitrary. There are no proper reasons assigned as to why
the report of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted. The enquiry officer
Ethape (5) WP-7507-2017
had rightly concluded that no charges are proved, since there was no
evidence on record. The witnesses who were examined could not give
particulars to prove any of the charges. The learned Chief Officer
however has taken all charges to have been proved without taking any
further evidence. There is nothing on record to show that there was
sufficient material on record to not accept the report of the Enquiry
Committee. He submits that even the learned Divisional Commissioner
failed to appreciate all these grounds and has drawn erronious
conclusion and dismissed the appeal. He thus prays for setting aside the
order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner and consequently,
the action taken against him.
7. Learned Advocate for the Respondent vehemently argued that the
petitioner was serving as a teacher which is considered to be a nobel
profession. The behavior and the conduct of the teacher is expected to
be beyond reasonable doubts. All the witnesses examined have
categorically stated about the misconduct of the petitioner. The
conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer was not correct. He failed to
appreciate that the strict evidence is not required in Departmental
Ethape (6) WP-7507-2017
Enquiry like in a criminal trial. In a Departmental Enquiry, the evidence
required is probability. She submits that there was a panchnama drawn
on 12th September 2011. There was also news item published in the
news paper. She supports the orders passed by the authorities.
8. Considered the submissions and the material on record.
Undisputedly, the enquiry report exonerated the petitioner. The Enquiry
Officer did not find sufficient material to come to the conclusion that
there is misconduct. When the Chief Officer issued notice asking for
explanation, there are no strong reasons assigned as to why the report of
the enquiry committee is not acceptable. The learned Commissioner also
failed to appreciate this material aspect and has rejected the appeal.
There is communication dated 2nd November 2012 by Block
Development Officer to the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad
that there was no FIR lodged against the petitioner and as no FIR was
lodged, the petitioner was not referred for medical examination to check
as to whether he has consumed alcohol. It is for this reason, the Medical
Officer did not examine the petitioner. Thus on record there is no
evidence to prove that the petitioner had consumed liquor. This court
Ethape (7) WP-7507-2017
finds sufficient force in the submission of the petitioner. Reliance of the
respondent on panchnama drawn by the authorities and the Sarpanch
though is on record, said is not supported by any evidence as it was not
tested for alcohol in blood.
9. On considering all above, this Court finds that the action taken by
the respondent was without any sufficient material. There was no
overwhelming material to come to different conclusion than the one
drawn by the Enquiry Officer. The basic fact of consumption of liquor by
the petitioner in the school itself is not proved.
10. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to sustain the impugned
order. The impugned order and the action against the petitioner are
therefore quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik dated 27 th February 2015 in
EMP Appeal No.162 of 2013 are quashed and set aside.
Ethape (8) WP-7507-2017
(iii) The order dated 7th September 2013 passed by the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar in Outward
No.Office-2/DE/744/2013 is quashed and set aside.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
