Bombay High Court
Vijay Narayan Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 18 March, 2025
Author: Nitin W.Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:3094-DB
1 wp8457.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.8457 OF 2019
Vijay Narayan Joshi,
Aged 73 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o 24, Ashirwad, Sant Lahanuji Nagar,
Civil Lines,
Wardha. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary Department of Finance,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Commissioner, Small Savings State Lottery
Affairs Department, New Administrative
Building Annex,
8th floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. Collector, Wardha Respondents
...
Mr.Shantanu Khedekar, Advocate h/f Mr. R.V.Shiralakar,
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.A.J.Gohokar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :MARCH 18, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Nitin W.Sambre, J)
2 wp8457.2019.odt
1. Heard Mr. Shantanu Khedekar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. A.J. Gohokar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
2. By consent, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage.
3. Impugned in the present petition is the order dated 17 th July, 2002
passed by the respondent no.2 which was confirmed in Appeal by the
respondent no.1 vide order dated 19 th March, 2003 and also the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 24 th April, 2015 delivered
in Original Application No.183/2003 confirming both the aforesaid
orders.
4. The facts necessary for deciding the petition are as under:
The petitioner initially served in the Armed Forces for seven years
which status was acknowledged in the order of appointment appointing
the petitioner as a Small Savings Officer dated 5th February, 1981.
5. Amongst other, the duty that was to be discharged by the
petitioner was to promote the Small Savings Schemes floated by the
State Government and to extend the assistance to the Agents in
achieving the targets. To motivate the agents, who achieve the savings
from the public at large, incentives were provided on the quantum of
amount invested and the petitioner in the capacity of Small Savings
Officer was authorised to recommend the incentives admissible to the
agents. The recommendation of the incentives by the petitioner was
3 wp8457.2019.odt
based on the investment received and the performance of the said
agents.
6. While discharging such duties, on 07th June, 1995 the petitioner
came to be suspended on the charge of illegal/false recommendations of
incentives in favour of the agents as his such act has caused loss of
Rs.4,72,332/-.
7. The suspension dated 07th June 1995 was followed with an
initiation of disciplinary proceedings and vide order dated 17 th July, 2002
the petitioner was held guilty and a major penalty of dismissal was
imposed on him. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the
order of dismissal dated 17th July, 2002 which was confirmed by the
State Government and both these orders as such are challenged in the
Original Application No.183/2003. The said Original Application also
came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24 th April, 2015 and as
such this petition.
8. In all, five Charges were levelled against the petitioner, out of
which two were proved and same has led to a show cause dated 20 th
April, 2002 based on the Enquiry Report dated 17th October, 2000.
9. While questioning the aforesaid three orders, Mr. Khedekar would
invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 5 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979 which
provides for the minor and major penalties. According to him, the only
authority which is vested with the petitioner as could be inferred and the
4 wp8457.2019.odt
same is also not disputed by the respondents is the right to recommend
the payment of incentives. According to him, since the recommendations
are not binding on the Competent Authority who has sanctioned the
incentives, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a disproportionate
penalty of dismissal from service.
10. Apart from above, his contentions are that the respondents ought
to have considered the background of the petitioner being an
Ex-serviceman and his exoneration in the preliminary enquiry caused by
the Deputy Collector. He has also claimed that the documents were not
supplied and as such there is a denial of an opportunity of hearing as
even the opportunity of examining the witnesses was not provided. As
such, it is claimed that based on an insufficient evidence
disproportionate penalty is imposed on the petitioner. He would further
claim that the petitioner is already acquitted of the criminal charge and
that being so, the same should have been considered at the time of
order of dismissal or by the Tribunal.
11. As against above, Mr.Gohokar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, would support all the three orders. According to him, the
disciplinary proceedings are based on the principles of preponderance of
probabilities and in stricto sensu the provisions of the Evidence Act are
not attracted. He would claim that not only the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal but also the Authorities below have already
looked into the evidence of the various witnesses so as to infer that the
petitioner was instrumental in preparing false claims and forwarding the
5 wp8457.2019.odt
same with forged seals and stamps of the post office. As such, the
Assistant Government Pleader would further claim that there are
concurrent findings and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. We have considered the rival claims.
13. The order of the Tribunal so also the other material placed on
record depicts that the respondents relied on 11 documents which were
made available to the petitioner. Based on the same, a full-fledged
enquiry was conducted. Once the enquiry was conducted, the order of
exoneration in the preliminary enquiry will hardly be of any significance.
14. Apart from above, had it been a case that the petitioner was
denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, he could have
moved an application immediately to the Authority i.e. Enquiry Officer
which he has failed to. Rather his conduct of submitting written notes of
arguments speaks of the petitioner wholeheartedly participating in the
enquiry proceedings and that being so, it cannot be inferred that the
petitioner was not offered a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the
matter.
15. There is enough evidence which was brought on record by
examining the witnesses, who were Small Savings Agents, who were
also duly cross-examined by the petitioner. The modus operandi
adopted by the petitioner in the matter of preparing false claims can be
easily inferred upon by plain analysis of the said evidence.
6 wp8457.2019.odt
16. Apart from above, we hardly see any material on record to infer
that the authorities below have recorded any perverse finding. It is a
settled position of law that even if the petitioner is acquitted in the
criminal trial that won't weigh in the matter of his exoneration from the
departmental proceedings as both are based on different principles and
the evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings are not governed by
the disciplinary proceedings or its outcome.
17. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to cause interference
in the extraordinary jurisdiction or to infer that a disproportionate
penalty is imposed on the petitioner. That being so, the petition fails and
stands dismissed. No costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.)
Mukund Ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/03/2025 18:59:57
