Advocates:
['GODHAMGAONKAR P G', 'D P BAKSHI', '', 'R/ AND SERVED']

7852.2012WP

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7852 OF 2012

Shri Nagorao s/o.Shriniwasrao Kulkarni,  

Age: 64 years, Occu : Retired Section 

Engineer Maharashtra Jeevan 

Pradhikaran, R/o. Tilaknagar,  

Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.       PETITIONER 

   VERSUS 

1.

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran 

Through its Member Secretary 

Express Towers, 4^th Floor,  

Nariman Point, Mumbai­21.  

2.

Superintending Engineer,  

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran 

Circle, Nanded, Tq.& Dist.Nanded.  

3.

The Executive Engineer,  

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran 

Division, Parbhani, Tq. & 

Dist. Parbhani.  

4.

Financial Consultant & Chief

Accounts Officer, Maharashtra 

Jeevan Pradhikaran, CIDCO 

Bhawan, New Bombay 

  RESPONDENTS 

...

Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar,   Advocate   for   the 

petitioner 

Mr.D.P.Bakshi, Advocate for respondent nos.1 

and 2.  

Respondent nos.3 and 4 served.   

...

7852.2012WP

2

  

   CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 

        

 

     S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.      

 

                 Reserved on   : 20.02.2018  

   Pronounced on  : 14.03.2018 

ORDER: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1]

This   Petition   is   filed   praying 

therein   to   quash   order   /   letter   dated 

11.11.2010   and   restore   recommendation   of 

Enquiry   Officer   and   absolve   petitioner   of 

charges by quashing punishment.  

2]

It   is   the   case   of   the   petitioner 

that   in   the   year   1973   the   petitioner   is 

appointed

  as   Junior   Engineer.

  After 

completion   of   five   years   on   the   said   post, 

the petitioner was nominated and promoted to 

the higher scale of Sectional Engineer in the 

year   1979­80.   While   the   petitioner   was 

discharging his duties on his regular post at 

Parbhani, he was given additional charge of 

7852.2012WP

3

the   sub­division   at   Gangakhed.   After 

completion   of   three   years   at   Parbhani,   the 

petitioner came to be transferred at Nanded 

in   the   year   2006.   On   31.08.2008,   the 

petitioner   attained   superannuation   and   got 

retired   without   any   stigma/blot   in   his 

career. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted 

his   pension   papers   to   the   concerned 

respondent authorities. However, no decision 

was taken by the respondents.  On 07.03.2009, 

the   petitioner   lodged   his   grievances   before 

the Lokayukta in respect of inaction on the 

part   of   respondents   in   the   pension 

proceedings.

3]

On   16.06.2009,   the   respondents 

initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. 

The   respondents   served   charge   sheet   on   the 

petitioner   and   asked   /   called   upon   him   to 

file   reply.     On   30.07.2009,   the   petitioner 

filed reply.   The petitioner has challenged 

7852.2012WP

4

the   said   enquiry   on   the   point   of 

jurisdiction.   According   to   the   petitioner, 

after his retirement on attaining the age of 

superannuation,   it   was   not   permissible   for 

the   respondents   to   initiate   an   enquiry 

against the petitioner under the Maharashtra 

Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 

1979. It is the case of the petitioner that 

the   store   keeper   is   the   incharge   of   the 

‘measurement

 

book’

 

at

 

the

 

Station 

Headquarter.   The   petitioner   was   made 

incharge of the ‘measurement book’ by way of 

additional   charge.   After   transfer,   the 

petitioner was relieved from the said work as 

in­charge.  

4]

It   is   further   the   case   of   the 

petitioner that thereafter on 17.02.2010 the 

petitioner   filed   written   statement   in   the 

enquiry and led the evidence. The petitioner 

was   working   as   in­charge   at   Sub­Division 

7852.2012WP

5

Gangakhed.   The   enquiry   was   not   initiated 

against the Record Keeper and other Officers, 

but   same   was   initiated   only   against   the 

petitioner.   Thereafter,   on   09.04.2010   the 

petitioner   was   served   with   the   enquiry 

report, and he was called upon to submit his 

say.