wp.4531.12.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4531 OF 2012

Shirish s/o. Vasudeorao Joshi,

Age : 42 years, Occ. Service,

r/o. Labour Colony, House No.198,

Latur

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.

The State of Maharashtra

2.

The Additional Divisional Commissioner,

Aurangabad

3.

The Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Latur

..Respondents

----

Mr.D.R.Irale-Patil, Advocate for petitioner

Mr.S.P.Tiwari, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2

Mr.P.R.Tandale, Advocate for respondent no.3

----

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

RESERVED ON : MARCH 10, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 10, 2021

JUDGMENT :-

The petitioner was working as a Civil Engineering

Assistant on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Latur. In 2006,

he was serving with Panchayat Samiti, Nilanga. `Indira Awas

2

wp.4531.12

Yojna (इंददिरा आवरासा योजनरा)’ (“the scheme”, for short) was to be

implemented in the village at Kasar Sirsi. Beneficiaries of the

scheme have to be below poverty line. They should have been

residents of the village. Selection of the beneficiaries was to be

done in Gramsabha. The Gramsabha was to be attended by

the Extension Officer or Junior Engineer or Sectional Engineer.

The Gramsabha was held. The petitioner was nominated as a

representative of the B.D.O./C.E.O. as Observer of the

proceedings of the Gramsabha.

2.

It was found that five of the beneficiaries selected,

were not below poverty line. Some other grave irregularities

were also noticed. The petitioner was, therefore, issued with a

notice to show-cause, as to why he should not be subjected to

departmental enquiry. His response to the show cause-notice

was not accepted. Departmental Enquiry was held against the

petitioner with six charges. The Enquiry Officer held the

petitioner guilty of all the charges. The disciplinary authority

accepted the enquiry report and on hearing the petitioner,

imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner

3

wp.4531.12

challenged the order of dismissal before the appellate authority,

Additional Divisional Commissioner (Revenue). He has,

however, been unsuccessful. The appellate authority affirmed

the decision of the disciplinary authority dismissing the

petitioner from service. The petitioner is, therefore, before this

Court.

3.

The charge/s framed against the petitioner is as

follows:-

(i)

When the valuation of the house of beneficiary

– Shankar Swami was Rs.1,50,000/-, it was shown at

Rs.28,500/-;

ii)

Wrong measurements were recorded of the

house of Shankar Swami;

(iii)

When Shankar Swami was financially sound and

was raising construction worth Rs.1,50,000/-, the

same was ignored;

(iv)

When three of the beneficiaries were not below

poverty line, still, they were given the benefit of the

scheme;

4

wp.4531.12

(v)

Responsibility of loss of Rs.85,500/- caused to

the Government;

(vi)

Though the beneficiary – Shankar Swami was

financially sound, still, with a view to assist him in

availing benefit of the scheme, the petitioner turned

blind eve towards his financial status and acted so as

to favour him;

The Enquiry Officer, after following the principles of natural

justice, held all the charge/s to have been established. The

disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed penalty

of dismissal. The appeal preferred thereagainst has been

dismissed.

4.

Mr.Irale-Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that the petitioner was not charged with

misappropriation of funds. The service record of the petitioner is

unblemished. A Civil Engineering Assistant was not to be

appointed as a representative of the B.D.O. for selection of the

beneficiaries of said scheme. As per the Government

Resolution dated 10.11.2003, if any wrong selection is noticed,

5

wp.4531.12

the Gramsevak alone was to be held responsible. The logic

behind the same is that