298-WP-5338-2009(J)

1/11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5338 OF 2009

Ashok s/o Udaram Pathrabe,

Age-44 years,

R/o. 6/5 Vidarbha Housing Board Colony,

Opp. Sindhi-Hindi School,

Panchpaoli, Nagpur-440 017.

… PETITIONER

-versus-

1.

The Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application

Centre (MRSAC), Nagpur, a society duly,

registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860,

`

through its Director, having its registered office

at Sir Vishweshwarayya National Institute of

Technology (VNIT) Campus,

South Ambazari Road, Nagpur- 400 011.

2.

The Chairman,

Governing Body, MRSAC, Nagpur and

Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-440 032.

3.

The Planning Department,

Government of Maharashtra,

Mantralaya Mumbai,

through its Principal Secretary,

Administrative Controller of MRSAC,

Nagpur.

...RESPONDENTS

-----

Shri R.V.Shiralkar, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri A.R.Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 17^th JUNE, 2022.

JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 30^th JUNE, 2022

Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to various orders passed by

298-WP-5338-2009(J)

2/11

the respondent nos. 1 and 2 placing the petitioner under suspension, thereafter

conducting a departmental enquiry and ultimately dismissing the petitioner from

service.

2.

The facts relevant for deciding the writ petition are that the petitioner

was appointed as ‘Accounts Officer’ with the Maharashtra Remote Sensing

Application Centre (MRSAC), Nagpur on 14.10.1994. During the course of service

the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.05.1999 pending enquiry in view

of irregularities noted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. On 01.06.1999 the Director

of MRSAC issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner. After appointment of Enquiry

Officer, an enquiry was held and on 26.03.2000, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report holding that out of the seven charges levelled against the petitioner, three had

been duly proved. On 13.04.2000 the Director issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner alongwith copy of the enquiry report calling upon the petitioner to show

cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner replied to

the same on 24.04.2000. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the

Director, MRSAC issued an order on 08.05.2000 dismissing the petitioner from

service. The Revision Application preferred by the petitioner before the Chairman

was also dismissed.

3.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal approached this

Court by filing Writ Petition No.156 of 2003. This Court by its judgment dated

29.11.2006 upheld the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after concluding

298-WP-5338-2009(J)

3/11

that the enquiry as conducted was fair and proper rejected the challenge raised to

the report of the Enquiry Officer. However the challenge raised to the order of

dismissal issued by the Director, MRSAC was accepted by holding that since the

petitioner’s appointing authority was the Executive Committee of MRSAC and not

the Director, the order of dismissal that was issued by the Director on 08.05.2000

was set aside. The MRSAC was granted opportunity to take further steps in the

matter. The claim for back wages was negated by this Court.

4.

After the aforesaid judgment, the services of the petitioner were again

placed under suspension by the Director after permitting him to join duties on his

former post. The petitioner was then granted an opportunity to submit his

explanation before the Executive Committee of MRSAC on the proposed punishment

of dismissal. On 07.02.2007 the petitioner submitted his explanation and

thereafter he was heard by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee

recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service. Those recommenda