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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. M. SAVANT, SARANG V KOTWAL, JJ.
Asif Badremunir Tahasildar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.643 & 692 of 2017
Decided On : 04-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arshad Shaikh a/w Mr. S. M. Shettigar
For the Respondent: Mr. H.B. Takke AGP, Mr. Rahul Nerlekar

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Rule 8, Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1979 - Allegations - Enquiry - Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division- Petitioner at relevant time in context of Departmental Enquiry was working as a Civil Judge Junior Division - A complaint was received from one against Petitioner concerning his tenure as Civil Judge Junior Division Bhokardan District Jalna- By said complaint disciplinary action was sought against Petitioner then Learned Principal District Judge forwarded said complaint to Registrar General of this Court- complaint was placed before Disciplinary Committee- Disciplinary Committee comprising of Honble Judges of this Court directed Principal District Judge Jalna to conduct a finding enquiry report of finding enquiry was thereafter placed before Disciplinary Committee who decided to initiate a Disciplinary Enquiry against Petitioner- Petitioner was accordingly issued a show cause notice along with memo of charges and statement of imputations –Held, Court in case and Apex Court case having been rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances as were prevailing in said cases would not aid Petitioner in so far as instant case is concerned- In instant case factual basis has changed in as much as original circular issued by Chief Justice of India has been amended by subsequent circular providing for a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit and/or verifiable material- In our view in respect of both Departmental Enquiries there being verifiable material on record same would be covered by amended case we should exercise our writ jurisdiction- As indicated above Petitioner has invoked Writ Jurisdiction of this court against order informing him that a Departmental Enquiry is to be commenced against him- Petitioner can obviously participate in enquiry and refute or dispel charges which are leveled against him- In our view commencement said two disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as is sought to be contended by Counsel for Petitioner as being in violation of circulars issued by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India- In our view reliance placed by Learned Counsel for Respondent on judgments (Supra) of Apex Court seems to be apposite- Apex Court has in terms observed that exercise of writ jurisdiction at initial stage of commencement of disciplinary proceedings would only be in exceptional cases more especially in cases where disciplinary proceedings are commenced without jurisdiction- Such is not case in instant matter- Court therefore do not deem it appropriate to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction – Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

R.M.SAVANT J.

1. By the above Writ Petition No.643 of 2017 the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 15-7-2016, (Exhibit N) by which order the Learned Registrar General of this Court has informed the Petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule 5(c) of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1979, has decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner. By the orders passed on the same date, the Enquiry Officer was also appointed to enquire into the charges.

In so far as the Writ Petition No.692 of 2017 is concerned, the said Writ Petition also challenges the order dated 15-7-2016, (Exhibit D) which order is to the same effect as the order impugned in the above Writ Petition No.643 of 2017. By a separate order passed on the said date an Enquiry Officer has also been appointed to looked into the charges which are the subject matter of the second Departmental Enquiry.

2. Since the Petitions involve a common question as to whether the Departmental Enquiry could be commenced against the Petitioner in the absence of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, both the Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of together.

3. The facts giving rise to the above Petitions can in brief be stated thus:

WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2017

The Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division. The Petitioner at the relevant time in the context of the Departmental Enquiry was working as a Civil Judge Junior Division in Bhokardan District Jalna. A complaint was received from one Mr. Teple against the Petitioner concerning his tenure as Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhokardan District Jalna. By the said complaint disciplinary action was sought against the Petitioner. The then Learned Principal District Judge, Jalna forwarded the said complaint to the Registrar General of this Court. The complaint was placed before the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee comprising of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court directed the Learned Principal District Judge Jalna to conduct a fact finding enquiry. The report of the fact finding enquiry was thereafter placed before the Disciplinary Committee who decided to initiate a Disciplinary Enquiry against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was accordingly issued a show cause notice along with the memo of charges and statement of imputations. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. The matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee who considered the entire material including the reply submitted by the Petitioner, as the said reply was found not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Committee decided to hold a regular Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner. It is by the impugned communication dated 15-7-2016 that the Petitioner was communicated the said decision which as indicated above is the subject matter of the above Writ Petition.

WRIT PETITION NO.692 OF 2017

4. Information was received by the Learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur as regards the incident which had taken place on 16-7-2015 involving the Petitioner. In the said incident the Petitioner had allegedly assaulted the bus driver of the school bus of his daughter and thereafter threatened the driver and the owner of the bus that he would involve them in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and put them behind bars for a period of 4 days. Pursuant to the said information which the Learned Principal District Judge Kolhapur had received, he directed the Learned District Judge-3, Kolhapur to conduct a discreet enquiry in respect of the said incident. The Learned District Judge-3 proceeded to Ajara, District Kolhapur which was the place of posting of the Petitioner and conducted a discreet enquiry in respect of the said incident which had allegedly taken place on 16-7-2015. In the course of the said discreet enquiry, the Learned District Judge-3 recorded the statements of the driver, owner





















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top