The requirement of valid sanction, limitation on initiating action after retirement, and the necessity of specific charges for fair opportunity for defense.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council dated 31/12/2015 imposing recovery of Rs.25,00,010/- (Rs. Twenty five lacs and ten).

3. The petitioner was working as a Tax Superintendent with the respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council. He was appointed on 16/04/1968 and retired on 30/06/2007. As per the contention of the petitioner, he had rendered blemish-less service throughout his career. He was also appreciated for his work. Despite inadequate staff being deputed in his department, he had performed his duty with utmost honesty and integrity.

4. On 30/06/2007, he retired from service due to superannuation. After eight years of his retirement i.e. on 31/12/2015, a notice was issued to him by respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council calling the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,00,010/-. Before this notice show cause notice was also issued to him on 17/06/2011. He replied the said notice on 20/06/2011. The respondent No. 5-Chief Officer, Municipal Council had held that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and hence charge-sheet was issued to him on 29/06/2011 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules” for short).

5. It is alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheet that he had not recovered taxes in respect of open plots within municipal council limits. It is further alleged that he had not brought the said fact to the notice of the higher authority regarding recovery of taxes and caused loss to the Municipal Council. As per the contention of the petitioner alleged notice and show cause notice was issued on 17/06/2011, after four years of retirement from service. The enquiry which was initiated against him was invalid and bad in law in absence of valid sanction. Charges leveled against him were vague in nature and baseless. As the enquiry was initiated against him his partial pensionary benefits were withheld. The petitioner further came with the case that the charges leveled against him were baseless as the information collected by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letters dated 25/06/2012 and 01/08/2012 showed that recovery of taxes had been made from the layout of Charanjeet Singh Juneja and Purushottam Cotton and Ginning Press which clearly indicated that the taxes had been recovered. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 7 had issued show cause notice to him due to previous dispute between him and one councillor. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry without affording him fair opportunity. An opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses, oral hearing was not given to him thus the enquiry was completed without giving him fair opportunity which is against natural justice.

6. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that show cause notice and the enquiry initiated against him be set aside and the directions be issued to the respondents to release his pensionary benefits. He has also prayed that the order of imposing recovery of Rs.25,00,010/- be quashed and set aside.

7. In response to the notice, respondent No. 7 has taken the stand that the action has been taken as per the legal provisions. There was no malafide intention. He denied action was due to political pressure. Similar stand was taken by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. It is the contention of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 that as there was no recovery of tax by the petitioner and he had not brought the said fact to the notice of the superior officer, action was taken against him. Due to the inaction on the part of the petitioner monetary loss was caused to respondent No. 5-Municipal Council to the tune of Rs.25,00,010/-. Respondent No. 4 stated that no relief is claimed against respondent No. 4, hence he has nothing to say about it.

8. Heard Shri A.R. Patil, learned Counsel fo