IMPORTANT POINT
The unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings and the non-speaking nature of orders can vitiate the proceedings and be contrary to the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it challenges an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal) dated 16th February 2015, whereby the Original Application (for short “OA”) of the Respondent has been allowed and the Petitioner-State has been directed to realise the services of the Respondent along with all retirement benefits on account of exoneration of all the charges framed against the Respondent.

Narrative of the events:-

(i) On 31st March 1979, the Respondent was appointed as a Warden Class-III and in the year 1981, she joined as warden of Sant Sakhubai Backward Class Government Girls Hostel at Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.

(ii) On 8th November 1983, the Respondent was placed on suspension on account of alleged misappropriation of funds.

(iii) On 17th December 1983, a charge-sheet alleging charges of misappropriation was issued to the Respondent. The Respondent submitted her detailed reply to the said charges.

(iv) On 10th August 1984, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry against the Respondent. The FIR was also filed with the Ahmednagar Police Station against the Respondent and her husband for the offences punishable under sections 409, 467, 477/A, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 28th May 1984.

(v) On 28th September 1984, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that Charge Nos.1, 3 and 5 are not proved and Charge Nos.2, 4 and 6 are proved.

(vi) On 12th September 1985, the Respondent was reinstated in her service, subject to the departmental enquiry being conducted against her.

(vii) On 8th May 2002, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar acquitted the Respondent and her husband from all the charges. The learned Magistrate in his order observed that the prosecution has failed to prove any sort of guilt against the accused-Respondent and the prosecution has failed to establish requisite ingredients of the sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which were invoked in the FIR.

(viii) In the year 2006, the Respondent was called upon to submit her say on the charges levelled against her in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

(ix) On 20th November 2008, the departmental enquiry was concluded and she was found guilty on account of Charge Nos.2, 4 and 6 and on the balance charges, she was not found guilty. The departmental enquiry officer after referring to the order of the Magistrate passed an order of compulsory retirement of the Respondent from her services w.e.f. 29th November 2008, under Rule 5(1)(vii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979. The said order also observed recovery of Rs.23,824/- from Respondent being financial loss incurred by the Petitioner-State. The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal by the Respondent.

(x) On 6th March 2009, the appeal filed by the Respondent was rejected and the order of compulsory retirement and recovery of the financial loss was confirmed. The said appeal order was further subject matter of review proceedings filed by the Respondent.

(xi) On 5th February 2011, the review application made by the Respondent was also dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings and various orders passed against the Respondent, an OA No.121 of 2012 as came to be filed by the Respondent with the Tribunal on various grounds stated therein. The Tribunal vide order dated 16th February 2015, allowed the OA filed by the Respondent and exonerated the Respondent from all the charges and further directed the Petitioner-State to grant all the service benefit to the Respondent from the date of her suspension till the date of her superannuation. The Tribunal gave various reasoning in support of its decision, namely, non-examination of any witnesses and opportunity