The court emphasized that compliance with procedural mandates in disciplinary enquiries against public officers is essential, ruling that failure to obtain necessary consent invalidates the enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

1. Rule. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives notice of hearing for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner, an Officer in the State Government is presently posted as a Director of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Vidarbha Administrative and Development Training Academy, Amravati.

3. It is claimed that in the past while serving as the Municipal Commissioner of Akola Municipal Corporation, the petitioner initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings against an employee, which led to the said employee lodging a false complaint of acquiring disproportionate assets by the petitioner. The said complaint was duly taken cognizance by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 accordingly started issuing communications calling information from the petitioner for conducting an open enquiry. Such notices/summonses are questioned in the present writ petition alleging that the same are contrary to the mandate provided by the State Government in the Circular dated July 27, 2015.

4. Shri F.T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would invite the attention of this Court to the Circular dated July 27, 2015 issued by the General Administration Department, which also refers to the earlier circular dated March 03, 2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mirza, the Petitioner, being Group-A Officer, in the matter of open enquiry against such Officer, it is necessary for the Director General, Anti-Corruption Department to examine the case on his own and only after the satisfaction, shall obtain consent of the Secretary, Home Department so as to conduct such open enquiry. According to him, it is also necessary that the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, before submitting such proposal to the State Government, shall obtain consent of the Head of the Administrative Department of such employee against whom an open enquiry is proposed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel in this background would claim that the additional consent of the Revenue Department is not obtained while submitting the proposal. He would claim that even if the earlier circular dated March 03, 2015 provides for grant of deemed permission, same has been merged in the circular dated July 27, 2015. Perusal of the circular dated July 27, 2015 will make it clear that the clause of deemed sanction has been modified in view of the mandate provided therein. He would further claim that the respondents, contrary to the above, has issued the notices to the petitioner calling upon him to submit information, as could be inferred from the communication dated January 01, 2025.

6. Shri Mirza, learned Senior Counsel, so as to substantiate the claim that the Government has not consented for conducting an open enquiry against the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated October 29, 2024 issued from the Administrative Department of the petitioner, viz. the Revenue Department. By drawing support from the said communication, in Paragraphs 2 and 3, he has specifically urged that the Administrative Department has not consented for conducting an open enquiry against the petitioner. That being so, he would claim that the notices issued by the respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed and set aside, viz. the declaration that the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner in the matter of open enquiry to be conducted in regard to the disproportionate assets.

7. As against above, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents, has opposed the prayer. According to him, the respondent No.2 has conducted an enquiry in accordance with the mandate provided in the circular dated March 03, 2015. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn support from clause (3) of the said circular so as to claim that there is a deemed sanction/approval for conducting an enquiry, if not decided by t