Advocates:
['SHELKE AVISHKAR S', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'NO CAVEAT', 'GP', 'PATIL BANKAR DEELIP N']

wp5497-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.5497 OF 2016

Ashok s/o Laxmanrao Dukare

Age 50 years, Occu: Service,

R/o Panchayat Samiti Quarters,

Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur

Dist.Aurangabad.

... Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The Divisional Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad.

2.

The Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad

... Respondents

Mr. A S. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner,

Smt. S.S.Raut, AGP for Respondent No.1 State,

Mr. Dilip Bankpar Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM

: K. L. WADANE, J.

RESERVED ON

: 14th March, 2017

PRONOUNCED ON ^: 15th March, 2017

JUDGMENT:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final

disposal.

3.

On 15.02.2010,

respondent No.2 initiated

departmental enquiry against the petitioner on three

charges i.e. absenteeism, insubordination and giving

1/7

wp5497-16.odt

threat of committing suicide. The petitioner submitted

his written say. Enquiry officer found that the charges

of absenteeism and insubordination are partly proved,

whereas the charge of giving threat of suicide is said

to be proved. Consequently, respondent No.2 issued

show cause notice, to which the petitioner replied.

Respondent No.2 passed an order of compulsory

retirement on 29.11.2011. The petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Respondent No.1 against the said

order. Respondent No.1 disposed of the appeal directing

respondent No.2 to reconsider the case for alternative

punishment. Thereafter, on 06.04.2013, after hearing,

the parties, respondent No.2 passed an order of

reduction in pay scale to lowest time scale of the pay.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ

Petition No. 3833 of 2013. This Court, after hearing

both the parties, granted liberty to the petitioner to

challenge the order dated 06.04.2013 by way of appeal

before the Competent authority. Respondent No.1, after

hearing the petitioner and perusing the papers,

dismissed the said appeal on 02.09.2015. Hence, this

writ petition.

4.

Respondent No2 filed affidavit in reply and ha

stated about the procedure being followed by the

2/7

wp5497-16.odt

respondents while deciding the departmental enquiry

proceedings as well as appeals filed by the petitioner.

In addition to that, respondent No.2 has specifically

contended that even after completing the first

departmental enquriy, conduct of the petitioner was not

improved and therefore, another show cause notice was

required to be issued to the petitioner.

By way of

rejoinder, the petitioner has contended that show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner after thought.

5.

I have heard Mr. A. S. Shelke, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Smt. S.S.Raut, learned AGP for

Respondent No.1 State and Mr. Dilip Bankpar Patil,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6.

During the course of argument, Mr. Shelke, the

learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that

while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner,

respondent No.1 has not followed the provisions of

Section 21 (2) of the Maharashtra zilla Parishad,

District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964,

particularly sub section (2) (a) and (c), thereof.

The learned counsel has argued that respondent No.1 has

not applied its mind while deciding the appeal. Only

the facts stated in the enquiry report are reproduced

3/7

wp5497-