Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRASANNA B. VARALE, S.M. MODAK, JJ.
Ramesh Kashinath Pawar – Appellant
Versus
Nashik Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5122 of 2019
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Mr. Vishal Tambat.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandip V. Marne.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the departmental inquiry must be initiated within the mandatory period, and the disciplinary authority must follow accepted norms before disagreeing with the inquiry report.
Headnote:
Departmental Inquiry - Pension Rules - Rule 27(2)(a), Rule 27(2)(b)(i), Rule 27(1), Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1979, Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 - The court discussed the initiation of departmental inquiry after retirement, the competency of the disciplinary authority, and the procedure for disagreeing with the inquiry report. The court found that the departmental inquiry was not initiated before the petitioner's retirement, and the disciplinary authority failed to follow accepted norms before disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer. The court set aside the resolution and orders, remanding the matter back to the Corporation for a fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Superintendent Engineer, challenged the penalty of permanent deduction of 10% from his pension imposed by the Nashik Municipal Corporation. The main issue was whether the departmental inquiry was initiated within the mandatory period of four months and whether the order was passed by the proper disciplinary authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry was not initiated within the mandatory period and that the disciplinary authority failed to follow accepted norms before disagreeing with the inquiry report. The court set aside the resolution and orders, remanding the matter back to the Corporation for a fresh decision.
Issues: The main issues were the initiation of departmental inquiry after retirement and the competency of the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the departmental inquiry was not initiated before the petitioner's retirement, and the disciplinary authority failed to follow accepted norms before disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the resolution and orders, and remanding the matter back to the Corporation for a fresh decision.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. MODAK, J.
1. The Petitioner who retires from service on 31st January 2016 from the service of Nashik Municipal Corporation as Superintendent Engineer was imposed with a penalty of permanent deduction of 10% amount from the pension has filed this writ petition. This order is passed by the Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation on 6th August 2018. The correctness of the said order is challenged on various grounds including the departmental inquiry being initiated after the expiry of statutory period of four months and also on the ground that the General Body of the Corporation is proper disciplinary authority and not Municipal Commissioner. There are also other grounds taken in this writ petition.
2. So the main issue involved in this petition is whether the Nashik Municipal Corporation has initiated the departmental inquiry within the mandatory period of four months as contemplated under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. So also it is required to be seen whether the order is passed by the proper disciplinary authority.
3. Apart from the merits of the matter, the prayer is opposed on behalf of the Nashik Municipal Corporation on the ground of maintainability of this writ petition. So this Court within limited purview of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is expected to look into these issues. On this background we have heard learned Advocate Shri Kiran S. Bapat for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate Shri Sandip Marne, for the Nashik Municipal Corporation. With their assistance we have perused the record and the judgments cited.
4. In the year 2006 Nashik Municipal Corporation has undertaken the project of Solid Waste Management under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (J.N.N.U.R.M.) launched by Government of India. The Corporation has appointed Eco Save Systems (P) Limited, a consultant in December 2006 for preparing Detailed Project Report (D.P.R.).
5. Then the project was implemented and it was completed in January 2010. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has also issued Physical Completion Certificate (Page 18). Even he has issued Utilization Certificate in the prescribed format (Page 19), which certifies about spending of Rs. 59.91 lakhs on that project.
6. Though the reason for review of the project is not informed to the Court, there is a report given by Shrikhande Consultants Private Limited dated 11th June 2010 (Page 277 of the compilation filed by the Petitioner on 30th November 2021). He has certified that the project solid waste management is in order. Our attention is also invited to a photocopy from the compilation titled as Executive Summary prepared by Shrikhande Consultants Private Limited (Page 266). They have certified quality of the work as satisfactory and overall performance is satisfactory.
7. Amongst 28 different charges faced by the Petitioner in the departmental inquiry one charge pertains to not making provision for electrification in the Detailed Project Report. Our attention is invited to a photocopy at Page 22 of the Petition. It mentions about provision of Rs. 152 lakhs for Electricals, Power connection, DG Set. In that view, the Petitioner has denied the allegation of not making provision for electricals, power connection.
8. Nothing happened till 15th December 2015. Committee consisting of Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration), Chief Accountant and Medical Health Officer was constituted to inquire into the allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation made in respect of that project. The Petitioner was instructed not to deal with the work as Executive Engineer (Mechanical). After that Committee submitted the report on 28th January 2016 thereby putting a blame on the Petitioner and his explanation was called one day earlier to his retirement. He retired on 31st January 2016 and the explanation was called (p
