Dismissed

State of Maharashtra and One Anr. v. Shri Ramdas K. Desai

Bombay HC23 Jul 2009WP/1347/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Administrative Tribunal orders that set aside a service reversion of a stenographer due to procedural defects. The Court held that the reversion order was stigmatic and lacked natural justice, but clarified that the issue of the respondent's eligibility for the post remained open for the department to decide later after a proper de novo inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of April 9, 2001 stood vacated. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's set-aside of the reversion order while leaving the issue of the respondent's eligibility open for fut

State of Maharashtra and One Anr. Vs Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1347 OF 2001

¶4

1.State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary
(Shri Navinkumar),
General Administration Department
And Sainik Kalyan (Desk-28)
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

¶5

2.Shri Bhagatsingh Desshmukh
Director, Department of Sainik
Welfare, Council Hall,
Maharashtra State,
Pune-411001...Petitioners
Vs.

¶6

Shri Ramdas K. Desai
Stenographer, Department of
Sainik Welfare, Maharashtra State,
Govt. Bungalow No.9,
Shashtri Nagar, Yerwada,
Pune-411006....Respondent

¶7

Mr.N.P.Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Respondent

¶8

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE &
 SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.
DATED: 23RD JULY, 2009

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

¶10

1.This Petition under Article 226 of the

¶11

¶12

Constitution of India has been filed by the
State of Maharashtra through the Secretary
General, Administration Department challenging
the orders passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.782 of 1994
on 14th June, 2000, Review Application No.31 of
2000 passed on 23rd August, 2000 and Contempt
Application No.105 of 2000 passed on 9th
February, 2001.

¶13

2.The Respondent came to be appointed as a
Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 1st July,
1981, in the office of the Director,
Maharashtra Rajya Sainik Board, Pune. He came
to be posted to the post of Stenographer on
16th April, 1984. In the year 1985 he was
deputed to the Industrial Training Institute
for further training as Stenographer and he
obtained thesaid training and completed in
the year 1986. However, by an order dated 24th
August, 1993 he was reverted to his original
post of Clerk-cum-Typist. He was issued a
charge-sheet dated 30th August, 1999. He,
therefore,approachedtheMaharashtra

¶14

Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.784 of 1994.
After hearing the parties and considering the
pleadings, the Tribunal by its order dated 14th

¶15

¶16

June, 2000 set aside the order of reversion
dated 24thAugust, 1993 and allowed the
Original Application. The said order passed by
the Tribunal (D.B.) reads as under:-

¶17

� ORDER:

¶18

�Heard. Petitioner was promoted as

¶19

Stenographer (L.G.) from 16-4-1984, having
earlier worked as a Typist. Admittedly he
acquired the qualification needed for the
Stenographer in 1986. Subsequently, on
receiving an anonymous complaint, the

¶20

petitioner has been reverted as a Typist by an
order dated 24-8-1993 on the ground that he
got his promotion as Stenographer in 1984 by
making if appeal falsely that he was
qualified. Ms. Manchekar for the State states
that a D.E that was proposed to be started
against the petitioner as per the impugned
order has since been dropped. The impugned
order is exfacie stigmatic and issued without
following the proper procedure. The order is
therefore hereby quashed and set aside. We
direct the Respondents to treat the petitioner
as not having been reverted as per the
impugned order. The Respondents will however

¶21

¶22

be free to re-fix the petitioner�s salary and
allowances as Stenographer treating him as
having been promoted on the date on which he
acquired the necessary qualification. No
recovery need be made for any excess payment
made earlier. These directions should be
carried out within two months. No order on
costs.

¶23

VICE-CHAIRMAN

¶24

 Sd/-xxx
(A.R.Vazalwar)

¶25

Dated this 14th day of June 2000. MEMBER-J

¶26

3.The present petitioners filed Review
Application No.31 of 2000 but beyond

¶27

limitations and hence, Misc. Application No.

¶28

273 of 2000 was filed for condonation of
delay. By a common order dated 23rd August,
2000 the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the
Review Application. The Tribunal clarified
that in its earlier order dated 14th June,

¶29

2000, the impugned order dated 24th August,
1993 was set aside as it was stigmatic in
nature and no other aspects were considered.
This clarification implied that the issues

¶30

¶31

regardingthequalificationsofthe

¶32

respondent, his eligibility for the post of
Stenographer and other requirements for
appointment to the said post were not taken
into consideration. Despite the Review
Application being dismissed, the order dated
16th September, 2000 came to be passed by the
Director, Sainik Welfare Department by which
the reversion of the respondent to the post of
Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 24th August,
1993 was directed. The respondent, therefore,
filed Contempt Application No.105 of 2000
before the Tribunal and the same came to be
disposed off on 9th February, 2001.

¶33

4.The Tribunal held that the present petitioners
were not guilty of contempt and again
reiterated that O.A.No.782 of 1994 was allowed
solely on the ground that the reversion order,
impugned therein, was stigmatic and it was
passed without following the recruitment
procedure under the Service Rules. All these
orders are challenged in this Petition.

¶34

5.The Tribunal repeatedly clarified that O.A.No. 782 of 1994 was allowed only for the reasons

¶35

6

¶36

that the order of reversion passed and
challenged therein did not meet the
requirements of the law. From 1986 to 1993
i.e. for 7 years the respondent continued in
the post of Stenographer and one fine day the
order of reversion was issued and that too
without any show-cause notice. The learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing before
the Tribunal on 14th June, 2000 had made a
statement that the departmental inquiry
initiated against the respondent was dropped
and thus no departmental inquiry remained
against the respondent. After the order dated
14th June, 2000 was passed, there was no
embargo on the powers of the petitioners to
issue a fresh show-cause notice to initiate a
de-novo inquiry after the authorities were
satisfied that the respondent did not possess
the qualifications for appointment as a
Stenographer. This would have provided an
opportunity to the respondent to put up his
case before the authorities and thereafter,
they were free to pass an appropriate order.
Even on conclusion of the departmental inquiry
the authorities were not prevented from any
further decision to either revert the
respondent or to punish him in any manner.

¶37

¶38

Instead of resorting to these requirements in
law and in keeping with the natural justice,
the authorities proceeded to pass the order on
16th September, 2000 reiterating the decision
to revert the respondent to the post of Clerk-
cum-Typist on the ground that he did not
fulfill the requirements prescribed for the
post of Stenographer and that he did not
produce the documents. Even in the order
dated 9th February, 2001 passed by the Tribunal
the eligibility issue of the respondent was
considered, but the Tribunal did not record
its opinion regarding eligibility of the
respondent and rightly so, having regard to
the limited powers while deciding a Contempt
Application.

¶39

6.We are satisfied that the order dated 24th
August, 1993 by which the respondent came to
be reverted was rightly set aside by the
Tribunal vide its order dated 14th June, 2000
and no interference is called for, in the said
order. The subsequent orders in the Review
Application and Contempt Application are only
clarificatory in true sense and they not
indeed adjudicated the qualification required
for the post of Stenographer. Undoubtedly the

¶40

¶41

order dated 24th August, 1993 was not only
stigmatic, but indeed it was against the
principles of natural justice and having
worked in the post of Stenographer for seven
years, he was reverted without offering any
opportunity of hearing.

¶42

7.In the premise this Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶43

8.Interim order passed on 9^th April, 2001 hereby stands vacated.

¶44

9.We clarify that this order or the orders impugned in this Petition do not prevent the petitioners in deciding the issue of the respondent�s eligibility for the post of Stenographer as on 24^th August, 1993, if the same still subsists.

¶45

 [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]

State of Maharashtra and One Anr. v. Shri Ramdas K. Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra and One Anr. v. Shri Ramdas K. Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmibai Babaram Chikhalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Changu Karnekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Joaquim Cosma Rodriques . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Ujwalla Baban Ventam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kantilal Shaudas Dukare Vs the Officating Commandant and Ors.

Mahadeo Mallappa Nagarale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.