Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Akhil Ahmad S/o Abdul Hameed – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner for Agriculture, Pune – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 444 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujeet D. Joshi, Mr. Ashish B. Rajkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patil.
The main legal point established is that the High Court's scope of interference in service matters, particularly in disciplinary proceedings, is limited, and it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with conclusions in the enquiry if conducted in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Charges of unauthorized absence and negligence leading to fire incident - Article 226 - Rule 5(1)(vii) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Electrician, was charged with unauthorized absence and negligence leading to a fire incident. He challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were upheld by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and that the punishment imposed was in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's unauthorized absence and negligence leading to a fire incident, and the challenge to the punishment of compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scope of interference in service matters, particularly in disciplinary proceedings, is limited. It emphasized that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with conclusions in the enquiry if conducted in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
1. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 186/2014, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Factual scenario, leading for invoking the writ jurisdiction, is as under:
(1) The petitioner was appointed as Electrician in view of order of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Aurangabad. He was posted at Parbhani in Group-C post. At the relevant time, the petitioner was required to attend the Court proceedings on number of occasions and as such, he was required to leave headquarters. Though he had proceeded on leave on numerous occasions, only after due permission of his superior officer.
(2) There was one incident of fire in the Laboratory at Parbhani on 17.12.2011 because of short circuit which was a pure accident and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the petitioner. Even then departmental enquiry was initiated against him by putting him under suspension. The petitioner was slapped with two charges, (i) Remaining absent without informing the office head and (ii) Making him found responsible for fire on the north-east direction of the laboratory on 17.12.2011. Departmental enquiry was concluded and the petitioner was held guilty. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service under the provisions of Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 by order dated 20.07.2013.
(3) The petitioner had challenged the said punishment by preferring departmental appeal before the Commissioner for Agriculture, Pune. However, the petitioner was unsuccessful and the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 07.04.2014. Being dissatisfied by the order of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad by filing Original Application No. 186/2014 which also met with the same fate.
(4) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original application No. 186/2014 dated 18.082017 as well as the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the appellate authority and sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, increments etc. by taking aid of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The respondents, by way of reply affidavit, contended that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were upheld up to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was found guilty under the Maharashtra Civil Service Conduct Rules. The respondents have followed the rules and regulations as well as proper procedure while conducting enquiry and awarded appropriate punishment by keeping in mind the charges proved against the petitioner.
4. Heard Mr. Sujeet Joshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Additional G.P. for the respondents at length. Perused the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 186/3024 dated 18.8.2017 as well as the order passed in departmental enquiry and the findings recorded there under.
5. Mr. Sujeet Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner are mischievous and have been levelled out of grudge and mala-fide. Findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse. The order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is unjust, improper, arbitrary and bad in law. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the petitioner, under compelling circumstances, proceeded on leave to prosecute civil suits and that fact is not considered by the enquiry officer. The petitioner had proceeded on leave and his leaves were subsequently sanctioned by the competent authority and as such, charge of absence from duty for 88 days levelled against the petitioner is untenable. The petitioner had put in 28 years long service and he is 56 yea
