2025:BHC-NAG:14060-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2025

(Shree Manik Bhagwangi Maliye Vs. The District Malaria Officer, Wardha and ors)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. L.H Kothari, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Pendke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ.

DATED : 10-12-2025.

Heard Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner and

Mr. Pendke, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 13.11.2014, passed in Original Application No. 513/2017, by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by which the

Original Application filed by petitioner was dismissed.

3. In short, it was a case of the respondent before the Tribunal that present petitioner had remained continuously absent from the year 1986 to 2015 and therefore, he was subjected to departmental enquiry. After completion of departmental enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Consequently, order of termination was

challenged before the learned Tribunal by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was undue delay in initiation of departmental enquiry. According to him, though the petitioner was absent from the year 1986 to 2015, there was no reason for initiation of departmental enquiry in the year 2015. He

further submits that delay resulted into miscarriage of justice.

5. Per contra, learned AGP submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and the length of period during which the petitioner was absent, clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in rendering his services.

6. We have tested rival contentions of the parties and also gone through record of the case. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was absent from 1986 to 2015. While conducting departmental enquiry, opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case. In our view, long absence of petitioner clearly show that he was not interested in the employment. Learned Tribunal in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment has dealt with the entire issue and has dismissed the Original Application, which reads thus:

“5. There is no dispute that the applicant was appointed in the year 1984. The applicant remained absent from duty from the year 1986. There is no dispute that the applicant contested the election of Gram Panchayat, but he had no time to join his duty. The applicant was having ample time in the politics. The applicant was trying to pressurize the respondents by issuing hunger strike notice. This itself shows that the applicant is a political person and therefore he was not interested to join duty. He was pressurizing the respondents. This is clear by the notice issued by the respondents to start hunger strike.

6. There is no dispute that the applicant approached to Labour Court for direction to the respondents to allow him on duty. The applicant has not prosecuted his claim before the Labour Court. There is no dispute taht the applicant had withdrawn all the proceedings before the Labour Court. The applicant was at liberty to contest all the proceedings before the Labour Court. The relief should have been given, if he was eligible for the same. The applicant now approached this Tribunal. Only contention of the applicant is that there is a huge delay in the departmental inquiry. The delay may be caused because of the political status of the applicant. The applicant was conti