SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1051

1999(8) Supreme 129
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Yoginath D. Bagde -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15479 of 1996
Decided on 16-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advocate, Vijay Thakre, R.S. Lambat, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate.

Important Point
Although the Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer in a departmental en­quiry it does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court inter­fere.

Headnote:Service Matter - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 -Part III, Rule 5(1)(ix)-Part IV, Rule 8-Appellant posted as ASJ-Refused long adjournment as matters being old-Transfer petition filed by accused before High Court-Filed another petition alleging that he had been assured of his acquittal in case Rs. 20,000/- paid as fee-Proceedings in Session Trial stayed-Made com­plaint against appellant to High Court-Appellant placed under suspen­sion - Charge-sheet issued-Enquiry Officer holding charges against appellant not proved-Disciplinary Committee disagreed with finding-Show cause notice issued-Appellant dismissed from service by State Government on recommendation of High Court-Writ Petition dismissed by High Court - SLP - Disciplinary Committee took final decision without giving opportunity of hearing to appellant at the stage it proposed to differ with finding of Enquiry Officer-Complainant’s story with regard to place at which demand allegedly made inconsistent-Trap farce-Non-consideration of statements of defence witnesses by Discipli­nary Committee itself sufficient to vitiate findings recorded by that Committee contrary to findings of Enquiry Officer.

       Held : In the instant case, we have scrutinised the reasons of the Disciplinary Committee and have found that it had taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. We have also found that the complainant’s story with regard to the place at which the demand was allegedly made by the appellant was inconsistent. We have also noticed that the trap laid by the A.C.B., Nagpur against the appellant had failed and was held by the Enquiry Officer to be a farce and not having been laid with the permission of the Chief Justice. We have also noticed that there was absolute non-consideration of the statements of defence witnesses, namely, Dr. Naranje and Mr. Bapat, advocate, by the Disciplinary Committee. This factor in itself was sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by that Committee contrary to the findings of the En­quiry Officer. (Para 51)

       

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.

The appellant has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 21.6.1996 passed by the Bombay High Court which had dismissed the Writ Petition by which the appellant had challenged the order dated 8.11.1993 (20.11.1993) dismissing him from service after the disciplinary proceedings in which it was found that the appellant was guilty of the charges framed against him.

2. The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge, Jr. Division, on 18.2.1974 and was thereafter promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division in August, 1983. He was further promoted as Addl. District & Sessions Judge in September, 1987.

3. In June, 1990, while the appellant was posted at Amravati, two Sessions Trials No. 28 of 1982 and 37 of 1987, in which one Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh, on whose complaint appellant was ultimately dismissed from service, was involved as an accused. Both the cases related to a murder in which the appellant had refused long adjournments on the ground that the matters were old. In July, 1990, the accused Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh filed a transfer petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court for the transfer of the case from the appellant’s court to some other court on the ground that one Shri Patil, Advocate, who was opposed to Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh, was very close to the appellant and, therefore, Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh apprehended that he would not get justice from the appellant’s court. This was registered as Transfer Petition No. 701 of 1990. On 10th of August, 1990, the accused Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh filed another Transfer Petition (No. 812 of 1990) on the allegation that his Advocate (Shri Bapat) had assured him of his acquittal in the case, provided he would pay Rs. 20,000/- to him as his fee. An interim order was passed in this case by which the proceedings in the Sessions Trial were stayed. On 18th September, 1990, however, Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh withdrew both the Transfer Petitions.

4. Thereafter, Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh made a complaint against the appellant to the High Court as a result of which the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 22nd April, 1992 which was served upon the appellant on 27th April, 1992. Thereafter, through letter dated 22nd May, 1992, a chargesheet along with the statement of imputations, list of witnesses and list of documents, proposed to be relied upon against the appellant, were issued to the appellant. The following two charges were mentioned in the chargesheet:-

    “1. That while you were working as 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, Sessions trial No. 28/82 and 37/87 were pending before you in which Deepak Trymbakrao Deshmukh was an accused. You had a meeting with said accused at the residence of Dr. Naranje Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti Road, Wardha on 23.11.90 when you assured him of acquittal on payment of Rs. 10,000/- in each case and that you thereby indulged in corrupt practice amounting to gross misconduct.

    2. That on 18.12.1990 at about 8.00 P.M. at the residence of Dr. Naranje, Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti Road, Wardha, you made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- from Shri Deepak Trymbakrao Deshmukh, resident of Wardha, Taluka Arvi, District Wardha, as consideration for his acquittal in Sessions Trial No. 37/87 under Section 302 etc. I.P.C. and that you thereby indulged in corrupt practice amounting to gross misconduct.”

5. The appellant filed his reply on 18th June, 1992 in which the charges were denied and it was stated by the appellant that Deepak Trimbakrao Deshmukh had made a false complaint against him so that his cases may not be tried by the appellant. On a consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied by the reply, decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the appellant and, therefore, by its order dated 3rd August, 1992 appointed Mr. G.B. Asma, Joint District Judge, Akola, as the Enquiry Officer.

6. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top