2023:BHC-NAG:17681-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 882 /202 3 Gajanan Mahadeo Satpute, Age 50 years, Occupation –

Nil, R/o Krushn Nagar, Ward No.13, Subhash Chandr Bos Marg, Wardha, District – Wardha. PETITIONER .....VERSUS..…

1. Government of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mumbai.

2. Police Superintendent, Wardha, Police Headquarter, District – Wardha.

3. Special IGP, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, Sadar Police Station, Civil Line, Nagpur – 440 001.

4. Adl. Director of Police (Administration), Ministry of Home, State of Maharashtra, Main Building II Floor, Hutatma Square, Secretariat, Mumbai – 400 032. R ESPONDENT S Shri T. Rahul, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri A.M. Deshpande, In-Charge Government Pleader for the respondents.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, J J .

DATE : DECEMBER 04, 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. On April 07, 2010, the petitioner having facilitated the escape of an undertrial namely Pramod Rewatkar was charge-sheeted in Form-1 by the Authority.

3. Subsequent thereto, he was served with the charge-sheet and an offence came to be registered against him vide Crime No.152 of 2010 for an offence punishable under Sections 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioner thereafter was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal trial vide judgment dated September 16, 2019 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.4), Wardha for an offence punishable under Sections 225 and 119 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. On June 08, 2010, the Disciplinary Authority framed the charges against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was served with the final order dated May 15, 2018 of dismissal from service in exercise of powers vested under the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1956’).

6. Forming the acquittal by the Criminal Court as basis, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated September 29, 2018 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority was upheld by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) in the revision vide order dated July 01, 2019 thereby confirming both the orders.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred Original Application No. 738 of 2020 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on September 21, 2022. As such, this petition.

8. The contention of Shri T. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner is, perusal of the order of dismissal delivered by the Disciplinary Authority does not refer to the violation of any Rule or breach of statutory provision. According to him, the available material is not sufficient enough to order dismissal of the petitioner from service. His further contention is, appropriate opportunity of hearing was not offered by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite our attention to the observations in the order of the Disciplinary Authority to urge that even though the enquiry was ordered against the four delinquents, it is only the petitioner who was punished in the present case thereby victimizing him.

9. The In-Charge Government Pleader would support the orders impugned. According to him, all the three Authorities so also the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has in detail considered the claim put forth by the petitioner and has reached to a conclusion that the petitioner is prima-facie involved in the act of facilitating the escape of an undertrial, who later on expired. According to him, merely non-mentioning of the provision does not render the orders illegal as long as it is not disputed that the powers vest with the Authorities t