Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
Ramesh Baburao Firode - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7163 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2019
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1979 - Rule 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226/227 - Order of rejection of Appeal – Employment and service – Removed from service - Whether it is proved that in summer vacation the delinquent took the complainant woman in a family room in the hotel in pretext of dinner and coerced her with tyranny - Whether it is proved that during September to November delinquent from his mobile sent obscene and horrific SMS to complainant woman on her mobile not befitting to government servant - Whether it is absolutely proved that both the delinquents were often sitting in the District Information Centre whilst under influence of liquor and were cutting nonsensical talks, intending to annoy the complainant woman - Whether it is proved that both delinquents committed non befitting misbehavior or misconduct to government servant likely to malign or wanton image of Court - One lodged a complaint against petitioner and one who was also serving as a driver in the District Court alleging that since one and half year petitioner assuming her as sister gained her confidence - In summer vacation, she had been to Bus Stand in City - Appellant met her and told that he was also going to the same side he will drop her at the intended spot on his bike. She reposed faith and sat on his bike - Appellant took her to a hotel for dinner - He pretended that if any staff of the Court saw him with her, it will make him difficult to serve in the Court, therefore, he took her in the family room - He latched the door of room inside then he slammed his hand around her neck she was helpless and unable to escape from his clutch - Appellant ravished her thereafter dragged her and clicked his mobile for photo then gave her threat to kill her her husband and children - Complainant woman further stated in her complaint that after a period of one-two months appellant gave her threat in Court campus that he will show the photo to her husband and will expose her if she refuses to keep illicit relations with him - Appellant also gave threat that he will ruin her family life - Appellant started sending SMS from his mobile to her mobile – Held, In the present case petitioner was charged for misconduct - Inquiry officer has given finding that there is enough evidence against the delinquent petitioner of committing misbehavior or misconduct with the complainant woman the wife of the tea seller in court campus - Disciplinary authority in its order of removal has observed that on account of the action of the petitioner the image of the court likely to malign - In Court view the petitioner is guilty of committing alleged misconduct - Charges have been of a kind of a conduct which violates the mandate given in Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii), which indicates that a Government servant shall all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and shall conduct himself at all times in accordance with the specific or implied orders of the Government relating the behavior and conduct of a Government servant - In court opinion the petitioner has not maintained absolute proprietary or integrity or discipline - Alleged conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government servant and had brought embarrassment and lower the image of court - Thus contention of the petitioner that department cannot construe alleged objectionable conduct which was not committed in course of employment as misconduct and further the alleged act or omission is not committed in the course of discharge of his duties as Government servant or it has no nexus with the nature and condition of service said contention is rejected for the observations made hereinabove - Next contention of petitioner that no adequate opportunity was given to petitioner to defend his case is contrary to the record - Record shows that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself - Petitioner was served with articles of charges and statement of imputation - Petitioner submitted his written statement to the same, and thereafter he participated in the enquiry - He was given every opportunity to defend himself and to produce sufficient evidence in support of his defense - Court do not find any irregularity or any error in the enquiry - In circumstances court reject the contention of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity was given to petitioner to defend himself during enquiry - Writ petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Anil S. Kilor, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
2. The petitioner who worked as a driver in the District Court at Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, having found his conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, in a departmental enquiry, was terminated on 23.04.2013. Unsuccessful in departmental appeal, legality of order of rejection of Appeal is questioned by the present petition.
3. Heard Shri Sanket S. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.M. Kagne, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Shri Rajendra S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The brief facts, leading to the present petition are mentioned herein below:-
The petitioner was serving as a driver in the District Court at Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, under the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, who is also a disciplinary authority.
On 28.11.2011, one Smt. Vandana Suresh Kamble lodged a complaint against the petitioner and one Bhausaheb Bansi Markand, who was also serving as a driver in the District Court at Ahmednagar, alleging that since one and half year, the petitioner assuming her as sister, gained her confidence. In summer vacation, she had been to Pune Bus Stand in Ahmednagar City. The appellant met her and told that he was also going to the same side, he will drop her at the intended spot on his bike. She reposed faith and sat on his bike. The appellant took her to a hotel at Supa for dinner. He pretended that if any staff of the Court saw him with her, it will make him difficult to serve in the Court, therefore, he took her in the family room. He latched the door of room inside, then he slammed his hand around her neck, she was helpless and unable to escape from his clutch. Appellant ravished her, thereafter dragged her and clicked his mobile for photo, then gave her threat to kill her, her husband and children. The complainant woman further stated in her complaint that after a period of one-two months, the appellant gave her threat in the Court campus that he will show the photo to her husband and will expose her if she refuses to keep illicit relations with him. Appellant also gave threat that he will ruin her family life. Appellant started sending SMS from his mobile to her mobile. There were 22 nasty, obscene SMS which are in the nature of threat to her life and life of her husband and children.
5. In pursuance to the said complaint, the articles of charges and statement of imputations, served upon the petitioner for the departmental inquiry against him.
6. In defence, the petitioner submitted his written statement after considering which the disciplinary authority appointed learned Shri D.S. Shinde, District and Additional Judge, Ahmednagar as an Enquiry Officer on 10th April, 2012. The Enquiry Officer accordingly conducted inquiry by framing the points for consideration which are reproduced hereunder:-
(i) Whether it is proved that in summer vacation of 2010 the delinquent Ramesh Firode took the complainant woman in a family room in the hotel at Supa in the pretext of dinner and coerced her with tyranny?
(ii) Whether it is proved that during 17 September 2011 to 10 November 2011 the delinquent Ramesh Firode from his mobile no. 8888725357 sent obscene and horrific SMS to the complainant woman on her mobile no. 9922176045 not befitting to government servant?
(iii) Whether it is absolutely proved that both the delinquents were often sitting in the District Information Centre whilst under influence of liquor and were cutting nonsensical talks, intending to annoy the complainant woman?
(iv) Whether it is proved that both the delinquents committed non befitting misbehavior or misconduct to government servant likely to malign or wanton the image of the Court?
7. The Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the inquiry, had reached to the conclusion that the points No. 1 and 2 were p
SupremeToday
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
