Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ANOOP V. MOHTA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department
Versus
Dr. Subhash Dhondiram Mane, Additional Commissioner
Writ Petition No. 9660 of 2014
Decided on : 01-12-2014
Suspension - Administrative Tribunal - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - The Tribunal entertained the application directly without relegating the applicant to the alternate remedy. The Tribunal rightly considered the factual aspect to ascertain whether the challenge raised by the Respondent fell under the available heads of challenge. The Tribunal was justified in looking at the material to find out whether the grounds of malafide and victimization made out by the Respondent were justified. The Tribunal rightly considered the factual aspect to ascertain whether the challenge raised by the Respondent fell under the available heads of challenge. The Tribunal was justified in looking at the material to find out whether the grounds of malafide and victimization made out by the Respondent were justified. The Tribunal has taken note of the previous litigation instituted by the Respondent, which is a matter of record, to draw a conclusion that there was a pattern of passing adverse orders against the Respondent and he was consistently shifted from department to department on deputation to prevent him from taking certain actions. Various orders were passed by the Tribunal protecting the respondent from the orders of the Petitioner State. Considering this record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the series of events lead to an inference that there was malice in law against the Respondent. The Tribunal has taken note of the previous litigation instituted by the Respondent, which is a matter of record, to draw a conclusion that there was a pattern of passing adverse orders against the Respondent and he was consistently shifted from department to department on deputation to prevent him from taking certain actions. Various orders were passed by the Tribunal protecting the respondent from the orders of the Petitioner State. Considering this record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the series of events lead to an inference that there was malice in law against the Respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Maharashtra challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the suspension of Dr. Subhash Dhondiram Mane, a senior-level employee due to retire soon. The Respondent alleged victimization and malafide intention behind the suspension order.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal entertained the application directly without relegating the applicant to the alternate remedy. The Tribunal rightly considered the factual aspect to ascertain whether the challenge raised by the Respondent fell under the available heads of challenge. The Tribunal was justified in looking at the material to find out whether the grounds of malafide and victimization made out by the Respondent were justified.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the suspension order and whether it was an act of victimization and malafide intention by the Petitioner State.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal has the discretion to entertain an application directly without relegating the applicant to the alternate remedy if it finds it futile to do so. The Tribunal can consider the factual aspect to ascertain whether the challenge raised by the Respondent falls under the available heads of challenge. The Tribunal can examine the grounds of malafide and victimization made out by the Respondent.
Final Decision: The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal setting aside the suspension was upheld. The direction for the completion of the enquiry within six months was set aside, and the costs imposed on the Petitioner-State were reduced. The ad-interim order was vacated, and no order as to costs was given.
N.M. Jamdar, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both parties, petition taken up for final disposal.
1. By this petition, the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 13 December 2014, allowing the Original Application filed by the Respondent and setting aside the order dated 4 September 2014 suspending the Respondent from service.
2. The Respondent, Dr.Subhash Dhondiram Mane, is working as a Director of Marketing, which is a senior level post. He is due to retire on superannuation shortly, on 31 December 2014.
3. The Respondent, entered the services of State of Maharashtra on 19 January 1983 as a Deputy Registrar, Class-I. Thereafter he worked in various capacities and was promoted as an Additional Registrar, Class-I post in July, 2009. He was sent on deputation as Managing Director, Maharashtra State Power-loom Corporation. He was posted as an Administrator, Maharashtra State, Cooperation and Agricultural Rural Development Bank in April, 2010. The Respondent made grievance that he was posted on a defunct bank and he was not permitted to work in a honest and diligent manner. After some other postings, the Petitioner was posted as an Additional Commissioner of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Navi Mumbai, and was then transferred to the post of Administrator of Maharashtra State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent made representations for repatriation and posting on a vacant post.
4. The Respondent filed an original application in respect of continuation of his deputation for more than four years. The original application was allowed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 29 November 2013. Since this order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed by the Respondent. In this contempt petition, a notice was issued by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Petitioner State issued an order of repatriation on 18 March 2014 and the Respondent was appointed as Director of Marketing and he took charge on 18 March 2014. On 20 March 2014, the powers delegated to Director of Marketing were stayed by the State Government. Thereafter, the Respondent filed another original application, upon which the Tribunal issued an interim order on 3 April 2014 staying the order of 20 March 2014. On 27 June 2014, the Respondent was served with a show cause notice in respect of certain news items pertaining to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mumbai. It was alleged that the Respondent was instrumental in publishing the news reports. Another show cause notice was served on 30 June 2014 alleging that the Respondent did not behave properly with representatives of people and used abusive language in respect of higher dignitaries. The Respondent gave his reply to both the notices. Thereafter the Petitioner-State issued an order for deputation-cum-transfer of the Respondent. The Respondent challenged the action of the State Government by filing Original Application, and the Tribunal by its speaking order dated 2 July 2014 stayed the order of transfer. Thereafter the Petitioner-State suspended the Respondent by order dated 4 September 2014, which is the subject matter of the present proceeding. The order of suspension stated that the Respondent gave false information to media and maligned the image of the Government, participated in a Television programme, criticized the Government and his behaviour with various higher functionaries and representatives of people was not proper.
5. The Respondent filed an Original Application No.834 of 2014 challenging the order of suspension dated 4 September 2014. The Respondent alleged that the order was malafide, issued with an intention to victimize the Respondent at the fag end of his career. He narrated the history of previous orders issued by the Petitioner State and the orders passed by the Tribunal to demonstrate that the order of suspension was a colourable e
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
