A retired engineer challenging the Corpuscular pension withdrawal due to alleged negligence causing financial loss. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the punishment was not disproportionate and the inquiry findings were supported by evidence.
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.
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 613 OF 2003
Shriram Ganesh Pendse Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Respondents
Mr. M. R. Bubna, for Petitioner.
Mrs. S. M. Modle, for the Respondents.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND
A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : May 2, 2008.
PC :-
. The petitioner retired from service of the respondent Corporation on 31st of March 2000. He was served with show-cause notice on 14th July 2000. He replied the same on 25th July 2000, thereafter an inquiry was conducted, inquiry report was given on 5th January 2001 and order was passed on 19th April 2001, withdrawing his entire pension subject to minimum admissible in terms of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules 1953. This court is conscious of the fact that in view of this proceedings, this court is not in a position to act as
| appellate | court. The findings arrived at by |
the |
|---|---|---|
| disciplinary | authority was confirmed by the |
appellate |
| authority | in the appeal, which was filed by |
the |
| petitioner, | which had dismissed the appeal by |
its |
| order | dated 7th August 2002. The charges against |
the |
| officer | were mainly that he had not done |
the |
| supervision | work in a proper manner, which |
has |
| resulted | in releasing 780 M. Tons of of |
M.S. |
| Plates/scrap | to the contractor, causing loss to |
the |
| tune | of Rs.1.53 Crores to the respondent Cor |
poration. |
| The | petitioner was in charge engineer at |
relevant |
| time. | The counsel for the petitioner contends |
that |
| petitioner/en | gineer was not in dereliction of his |
duty |
| on his |
part, as no discrepancy in his work was |
pointed |
| out a |
t any stage therefore, he could not be |
held |
| responsible | for excess supply of the material of |
780 |
| M.Tons | to the contractor. Even if this argument |
is |
| accepted, | the facts setout were also sufficient |
to |
| hold | the petitioner responsible and that would |
not |
| entitle | the petitioner to the benefit of ex |
onerating |
| him f |
rom the charges levelled against him. |
The |
| inquiry | officer after going through records |
and |
| hearing | the petitioner, found that all the |
charges |
| were | proved against him. The report of the |
inquiry |
| officer | is not a report which can be termed |
as |
| perverse | as there was evidence before the |
inquiry |
| officer | to c |
o | me to the conclusio |
n | to whic |
h h |
e | had |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arrived. | It is |
not the case of |
no | evidenc |
e at |
all | and |
|
| as | such | t | he findings and conc |
lusi | ons of |
the | inquiry | |
| officer | cannot be |
termed as perverse. |
In | reply | to | one | ||
| of | the ch |
arges, the petitioner |
himself | has | stated | |||
| there | were |
1 | 50 M. Tons lyi |
ng | in | the | con | tractor’s |
| workshop, | even |
after completion |
of | the |
contract | and | ||
| the | conclusion | drawn by the inq |
uiry | officer |
based | on | ||
| this | reply w |
a | s that it would s |
how | that | an | excess | |
| material | had | b | een supplied to the |
c | ontractor. | We | do | |
| not | find that |
such a conclusion |
ca | n be |
term | ed | as | |
| perverse. | Sim | ilarly on other |
c | harges | the | inquiry | ||
| officer | found | that at no stage, |
the | petitioner | had | |||
| pointed | out | that excess material |
supplied | to |
the | |||
| contractor | may | be by other offic |
ers, | who |
were | also |
responsible. But in our view that cannot be a reason
to leave the petitioner scot-free.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the
inquiry is disproportionate. We do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as there has been a loss of more than Rs.1.50 Crores to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner in
the inquiry does not, in our opinion, appear to be
disproportionate. In this view of the matter, we do
not find any merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/[ BILAL NAZKI, J. ]
Sd/[ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary punishment of withdrawing pension subject to minimum admissible rules was disproportionate to the loss caused by the petitioner.
Whether the findings of the inquiry officer regarding lack of proper supervision were sufficient to hold the petitioner responsible without being perverse.
Shriram Ganesh Pendse
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
BILAL NAZKI
A. P. BHANGALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
