Dismissed

Dr. M.S. Ghawte v. the Commissioner (Bmc) and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2009CAW/1007/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed three civil applications filed by applicant M.S. Gawte, finding them to be frivolous and lacking merit after repeated adverse observations by the Court. The applicant, known for filing repetitive grievances, was ordered to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

The civil applications were dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

Dr. M.S. Ghawte Vs the Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1007 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2005

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1008 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2005

¶8

ALONG WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1484 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2005

¶10

M.S. Gawte ... Applicant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, & Ors.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1568 OF 2005 IN

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.3057 OF 2005

¶16

Municipal Commissioner ... Applicant

¶17

Vs.

¶18

M.S. Gawte & Anr. ... Respondents

¶19

AJN

¶20

¶21

Mr. M.S. Gawte, applicant in person.

¶22

Mr. M.M. Malwankar for Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶23

Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the State.

¶24

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶25

DATED : 20TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶26

P.C.:-

¶27

All these civil applications can be conveniently

¶28

disposed of by a common order because the parties involved in all these civil applications are the same.

¶29

It is necessary to begin with certain facts, which can be gathered from various proceedings in respect of the applicant which were made available to us by the office of this court.

¶30

The applicant Dr. M.S. Gawte was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (‘AMO’ for short) in the Mumbai

¶31

AJN

¶32

¶33

Municipal Corporation (‘MMC’ for short) on 2/9/1988. It was noticed that the applicant was guilty of misconduct. It was, inter alia, found that the applicant was tampering the muster, that he was not attending the emergency duties and that he had deserted the duty place without superior’s permission. As the preliminary inquiry revealed a prima facie case of gross misconduct, a Departmental Inquiry was conducted as per the DMC (P)'s Order dated 31/7/1997 under No. MRC/3201/LFS. A charge-sheet was served on the applicant. He was given opportunity to put forth his defence but he continuously remained absent and, therefore, the inquiry proceedings were completed ex-parte. On consideration of the evidence on record and the Enquiry Officer’s report, D.M.C. (Hosp.) held that the charges levelled against the applicant were proved and passed an order to that effect on 7/7/2000.

¶34

A show cause notice duly signed by DMC (Health) dated 23/8/2000 was served on the applicant on 16/11/2000 under No.CHOE/DE/ASM/287 by R.P.A.D. which

¶35

¶36

AJN

¶37

was received back with the Postal Authorities’ remark as unclaimed’. The said show cause notice was therefore, treated as served’ as per existing rules. Since the applicant did not submit his reply to the show cause notice, on 21/6/2001, the Director, Medical Education & Health passed final order of removal of the applicant from service.

¶38

Writ Petition No.4542 of 1998 was filed by the applicant, wherein the applicant prayed that he may be allowed to continue to work with the MMC. On 13/2/2004, the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (H.L.Gokhale & F.I.Rebello, JJ.). It appears from the order passed by this Court that the grievance made by the applicant was that the order dated 21/6/2001 was not served upon him. Learned Counsel appearing for the MMC made a statement that copy of the order will be made available to him on 16/2/2004. This court directed the applicant to approach the Executive Health Officer of MMC for that purpose. This court further

¶39

AJN

¶40

¶41

observed that it will be open to the applicant to file Departmental Appeal against the order, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It appears that the applicant preferred two appeals, one against his removal and the other against his dismissal. This court left it open to the applicant to make representation as regards other claims of the petitioner with respect to sanctioning of leave and unpaid wages on various dates, etc.

¶42

As stated above, the applicant filed two appeals, one

¶43

against his removal from service and another against his dismissal from service. According to the MMC, letter dated 28/5/2004 was issued to the applicant asking him to remain present on 9/6/2004 in the Chamber of the Joint Municipal Commissioner (I) for hearing. The applicant remained present for the hearing. He argued his case. On 5/7/2004, the Joint Municipal Commissioner (I) passed an order and disposed of the appeals by observing that the points raised by the applicant are not convincing and

¶44

AJN

¶45

¶46

acceptable and, hence, charges levelled against him are proved. He, however, added that considering the age of the applicant, he should be punished by reducing his basic pay to the minimum of the grade of the post of AMO for one year with permanent effect. Accordingly, on 29/9/2004, the Executive Health Officer passed order and reduced the applicant’s basic pay to the minimum of the grade of AMO for a year with permanent effect.

¶47

On 29/9/2004 one Mahendra Waman Mhatre, clerk of the MMC visited the applicant to serve copy of the order dated 29/9/2004. He served the order on the applicant and requested him to give acknowledgment on another copy. However, the applicant refused to give acknowledgment. We have been shown copy of the letter addressed by Mahendra Waman Mhatre to MMC stating that he had visited the applicant on 29/9/2004 and that the applicant took the original as well as copy of the order in his possession and refused to give him the copy with acknowledgment though repeatedly requested by him.

¶48

AJN

¶49

¶50

Learned Counsel for the MMC has shown us letter dated 16/10/2004 sent by the applicant to the Executive Health Officer, MMC, Mumbai, requesting the MMC to allow him to join duties and praying for back wages. In the letter, there is reference to the order dated 29/9/2004. This indicates that in fact, this order was served on the applicant.

¶51

It appears that a parallel departmental inquiry was

¶52

going on against the applicant. On 26/12/1997, he was transferred to the Mulund Maternity Home. However, though he had accepted the transfer order, on 27/12/1997, he did not remain present at the Mulund Maternity Home. He remained absent from 27/12/1997. Therefore, notice dated 4/2/2004 was served on him asking for an explanation. He sent a reply dated 19/2/2004 stating that since his Writ Petition No.4542 of 1998 was disposed of, there was no question of his giving any reply to the show cause notice. This reply was

¶53

¶54

AJN

¶55

obviously incorrect because this show cause notice was a different show cause notice. Therefore, since the applicant continuously remained absent from duty for more than five years, since 27/12/1997, order was passed under Rule 27(1) of the Municipal Services Rules to the effect that the applicant’s services with the Municipal Corporation had ceased from 26/12/2002. This order was passed on 17/2/2005 by the Executive Health Officer and it was served on the applicant by RPAD on 18/2/2005. Copy of the acknowledgment to that effect is produced on record. It is in the compilation filed by learned counsel for the Corporation.

¶56

It appears that the applicant had also made representation to the MMC, dated 23/2/2004. The applicant also filed Writ Petition No.3057 of 2005 in this Court. On 6/5/2005, the Division Bench of this Court (Dalveer Bhandari, C.J. & S.A.Bobde, J.) directed that the applicant’s representation be disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of this

¶57

¶58

AJN

¶59

Court dated 6/5/2005, after affording hearing to him. The

¶60

applicant was also directed to appear before the Commissioner on 10/5/2005 at 11.00 a.m. In the meantime, Civil Application No. 1568 of 2007 was taken out by the MMC for modification of the order dated 6/5/2005, as according to the MMC, the representation of the applicant was already considered by the Joint ME&HC on 6/5/2004 and disposed of on 5/7/2004. Learned counsel for the Corporation states that the fact of the disposal of the representation was communicated to the petitioner on 29/9/2004 by speed post.

¶61

Inspite of this, the applicant, thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.241 of 2005 stating that order of this court dated 6/5/2005 was not complied with by the MMC. The contempt petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 24/2/2006 after taking into consideration the fact that the MMC had already complied with the directions issued by this court vide order dated 13/2/2004. Learned Single Judge

¶62

AJN

¶63

¶64

observed that the Department Appeal as well as representation filed by the applicant were disposed of by the MMC. Learned Single Judge directed the applicant to pay costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

¶65

The applicant, then filed Writ Petition No.4710 of 2005. That writ petition was heard by another Division bench of this Court (R.M.S.Khandeparkar & Naresh H.Patil, JJ). The said petition was disposed of by passing the following order :-

¶66

"1. None present for the petitioner. Heard learned Advocates for the Respondents.

¶67

2. The petitioners grievance relate to failure on the part of the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.2.2004 made by the petitioner. The affidavit in reply along with Annexures filed on behalf of the Corporation clearly discloses that the concerned Authorities have in accordance with the provisions of law have disposed of the representation.

¶68

3. The contention of the petitioners

¶69

AJN

¶70

¶71

that the Order passed by the Authority relates to some other representation, is totally devoid of substance. In fact, though there were two representations made, they related to the same grievance of the petitioners. Indeed even the proceedings for contempt initiated by the petitioner were dismissed after taking into consideration the fact that the Corporation has already complied with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2004.

¶72

Being so, there is absolutely no substance in the petition. Petition is accordingly rejected."

¶73

It is evident from this order that the applicant had filed an absolutely frivolous petition. The two

¶74

representations of the applicant related to the same grievance and they were disposed of by the MMC. It is pertinent to note that this Court observed that there was absolutely no substance in the petition. Inspite of this order, the petitioner took out Civil Application No. 2795 of 2006 in disposed of Writ Petition No.4542 of 1998 again praying that the same representation be directed to be

¶75

AJN

¶76

¶77

decided. The said civil application was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court (B.H. Marlapalle & J.H. Bhatia, JJ.) vide order dated 24/11/2006. It is important to note that the Division Bench, while rejecting the civil application, noted that the applicant is in the habit of filing frivolous applications against MMC. It further noted that the acts of the applicant will have to be noted in future so as to ensure that he does not misuse the judicial proceedings to harass the respondent-officers.

¶78

13. Inspite of these observations, three civil applications

¶79

being Civil Application Nos. 1007 of 2009, 1008 of 2009 and 1484 of 2009 are taken out by the applicant making same prayers and false allegations against the MMC. He has abused the process of this court. He is repeatedly making grievances which this court has found to be without any substance. Precious time of this court cannot be used for dealing with such frivolous applications. There is absolutely no merit in any of the applications filed by

¶80

AJN

¶81

¶82

the applicant. The applicant appears to be not deterred by the adverse observations made by this court. Time has come to deal with him with a firm hand. Costs need to be imposed on him.

¶83

For the reasons aforestated, we dismiss all the above civil applications filed by the applicant. The applicant shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The costs as directed above shall be deposited with the Registry of this court, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order so that the Registry can then transfer the said amount to the High Court Legal Services Authority, High Court, Bombay.

¶84

Before registering any application filed by the applicant, the Registry shall check whether he has paid the costs imposed by us on him.

¶85

AJN

¶86

¶87

In view of the above, Civil Application No.1568 of 2005 filed by the MMC also does not survive and is

¶88

disposed of.

¶89

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶90

[A.A. SAYED, J.]

Dr. M.S. Ghawte v. the Commissioner (Bmc) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M.S. Ghawte v. the Commissioner (Bmc) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep Gulabrao Kale Vs the Principal Secretary - Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Shriram Keshav Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Sant Ravidas Magasvargiya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajni Avinash Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Rototex Polyester and Anr. Vs Administrator - Administration of Dadra and Nagar Havli (U.T.)Electricity Department, Silvassa and

Shri Ganesh Siddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr.