The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the stoppage of three increments as a penalty. The Court held that the authorities' discretion was not perverse. The petition for back wages was denied as the petitioner failed to prove lack of alternative gainful employment during suspension.
Petition rejected; back wages denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7927 OF 2007
Suhas Kedari Mahadik ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Vinod Shetty and Ketaki Rege for the petitioner.
Mr. A.H. Palekar, AGP, for the respondents.
CORAM: S.B. MHASE &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED: 25TH OCTOBER, 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges
the imposition of penalty of stoppage of three
increments by the order dated 14th October, 2005. The
petitioner also seeks a direction to pay him full back
wages during the period of his suspension between 13th
December, 1999 to 6th December, 2005.
3. Petitioner who is employed as a clerk in the
Labour Court was chargesheeted for two misconducts, viz.
(i) demanding of bribe and (ii) non deposit of
: 2 :
Government money into the Nationalized Bank. Petitioner
was initially held guilty of both charges and dismissed
from service. On appeal, the petitioner was exonerated
of the first charge and the matter was remanded back for
reconsideration of penalty in view of the fact that the
petitioner was exonerated in respect of one of the
charges. After reconsideration, the petitioner was
again dismissed from service, but on appeal the
appellate authority reduced the punishment from
dismissal to stoppage of three increments. In this
petition, the petitioner has challenged that part of the
order which imposes punishment of stoppage of three
increments.
4. It is worthy to note that the petitioner has
not challenged in this court the finding of guilt in
respect of the second charge. His only grievance is in
respect of the quantum of punishment. The matter of
punishment in exercise of discretion by the authority
and unless the exercise of discretion is found to be
totally perverse, it is not possible to interfere in the
said discretion. We do not find any perversity in the
discretion exercised in the matter of imposing
punishment.
5. As regards back wages admittedly the
: 3 :
petitioner did not work during the period of suspension
between 13th December, 1999 to 6th December, 2005. The
petitioner has been found guilty in respect of one
charges. The petitioner has also not adduced any
evidence that during the period of his suspension and/or
dismissal he was not gainfully employed anywhere else.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to
back wages.
6. There is no merit in the Petition. It is
hereby rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[D.G. KARNIK, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal and subsequent punishment of stoppage of increments, after exoneration of one charge, was perverse?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages during the period of suspension in absence of evidence of alternative employment?
Suhas Kedari Mahadik
State of Maharashtra
S.B. MHASE
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court