The judgment established the mandatory nature of Rule 8(20) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 in ensuring natural justice in departmental inquiries. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the application of the doctrine of proportionality in assessing the reasonableness of disciplinary actions.

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

The petitioner takes exception to the order of his removal dated 31/07/1996 passed by the Executive Director of the respondent No.1, thereby removing the petitioner from the service as Head Accountant with effect from 31/07/1996, and further prays for directing the respondents to take the petitioner on duty as Head Accountant with effect from 31/07/1996 along with salary, increments, back-wages and other benefits.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Head Accountant with the respondent No.1, departmental inquiry was initiated against one Shri P.S. Udawant, Shri N.L. Kundalikar a cashier and the petitioner on 27/03/1995 was issued the charge-sheet, as per the said charge-sheet, charge against petitioner was that the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of his duty by not verifying the character, honesty of Shri Kundalikar and intentionally committing breach of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline), Rules, 1976. The allegations against one Shri P.S. Udawant were of similar nature, whereas Shri Kundalikar was accused of mis-appropriating a sum of Rs. 5,86,016.37 paise. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations. The Executive Director of respondent No.1 appointed one Shri S.G. Muglikar, as an Inquiry Officer. The witnesses came to be summoned and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report. The Board of Directors agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and as such show-cause notice was issued to all three delinquents i.e. Shri P.S. Udawant, N.L. Kundlikar and the petitioner. After receipt of the reply, the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 passed an order of removing petitioner and Shri Kundalikar from service and four annual increments of Shri P.S. Udawant were permanently with-held. The petitioner has challenged the said order of removal before this Court.

3. We have heard Shri M.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.P. Powar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri K.B. Choudhari, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.2/State at length.

4. Shri M.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner put-forth following prepositions :-

i) The petitioner was not allowed the assistance of Shri Modak or any other person, during the course of the departmental proceedings and was also not supplied with the relevant documents, as such the inquiry is bad-in-law. According to him, the same tantamounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

ii) Rule 8(2)) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 (here-in-after referred to as 'Rules, 1979) are not complied and as such the same vitiates the inquiry itself, inter alia the order of removal based on such inquiry is bad-in-law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in a case of "Masuood Alam Khan-Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtar and others, reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 68."

iii) There were no allegations of mis-appropriation against the petitioner, the allegations of mis-appropriation were only against Shri Kundlikar and Shri Kundlikar had also accepted his guilt, he had also deposited the amount. Only allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was negligent in not verifying the character and honesty of Shri Kundlikar. The charge against the petitioner and Shri P.S. Udawant were similar. But Shri P.S. Udawant was imposed a minor punishment i.e. his four increments are only with-held. Whereas the petitioner is ordered to be removed from service and there is discrimination.

iv) The punishment imposed is too disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner.

5. Shri R.P. Powar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 strenuously contended that :-

i) In the present case, compliance of Rule 8(20) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 is not mandatory, keeping in view of the facts of the present case. No prejudice is caused to