Allowed

Manohar B. Gori v. the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2009WP/7603/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired superannuated petitioner belonging to Group-A employed by MIDC, challenged a departmental enquiry notice initiated by the CEO under Article 226. The Court, relying on precedents, held that the CEO lacks jurisdiction for Group-A employees and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned letter dated 27.12.2004 initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

Manohar B. Gori Vs the Maharashtra Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7603 OF 2008

¶5

ALONGWITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1847 OF 2009

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7603 OF 2008

¶9

Shri Manohar B. Gori Vs.

¶10

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Anr.

¶11

... Petitioner.

¶12

... Respondents.

¶13

Mr. S.A.Sawant advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P.Chavan i/by Little & Co. for respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶14

CORAM : Smt. Ranjana Desai & A.A.Sayed, JJ. DATE : August 4, 2009.

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶16

In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed that order, dated 27.12.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (for short "CEO"), Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short "MIDC") launching departmental enquiry against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶17

¶18

Rule was issued on this petition on 26.2.2009. The civil application filed by the petitioner is on board today for hearing. However, since one of the issues involved in this petition is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (J.N.Patel & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ.) in Vilas K. Kamble vs. MIDC and Ors, delivered on 10/3/2008 in Writ Petition No. 9115 of 2007

¶19

and since on that ground the petition can be disposed of finally, it is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

¶20

The petitioner was working with the 1st respondent-MIDC. He retired from the post of Superintendent Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. By letter dated 19.10.2004, the petitioner was informed by the 2^nd respondent the CEO MIDC that the petitioner caused loss to MIDC Explanation of the petitioner was called for as to why a disciplinary enquiry should not be initiated against him. According to the petitioner he submitted his reply to the said show cause notice.

¶21

By the impugned letter dated 27.12.2004, the petitioner was informed by the 2^nd respondent -CEO that departmental enquiry has been initiated against him on the charges, more particularly, stated in the annexure to the said letter. As we have already stated in this petition there is a challenge to the said letter dated 27.12.2004.

¶22

¶23

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner belongs to “A” category of employees. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of this court in case of Vilas Kamble's case (supra) . In that case the inquiry was initiated against an “A” category employee. After considering the relevant rules, this court quashed and set aside the decision to initiate enquiry on the ground that in respect of employees falling in Group “A” and Group “B” departmental inquiry cannot be initiated by the CEO. The Competent Authority to initiate the enquiry is the Chairman of the MIDC. We may quote the relevant paragraph of the said judgment :-

¶24

"10. Our attention has been drawn to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Employees (Classification and Recruitment) Regulations, 1994 (for short, "Regulations of 1994"), which clearly specifies recruitment to all posts in the Corporation and all matters relating thereto are to be dealt with the said Regulations of 1994. In the definition clause 3(c), it is stated that the competent authority in respect of officers Group-A and Group-B means the chairman of the M.I.D.C. and in respect of Group-C and Group-D, the

¶25

¶26

Chief Executive Officer for M.I.D.C. and/or any other authority designated by the Corporation in that behalf. Therefore, it is quite clear that insofar as the competent authority, which is empowered to deal with service conditions of employees of M.I.D.C. of Group-A and Group-B are concerned, is the Chairman of the M.I.D.C. and not the Chief Executive Officer who has jurisdiction over employees of Group-C and Group-D."

¶27

The above decision has been followed by another division bench of this Court (Bilal Nazki and Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 4188 of 2007 decided on 30^th June, 2009. In view of this settled position, the impugned letter at Exhibit “C”, dated 27.12.2004 requires to be quashed and is accordingly quashed . It would however be open to the respondents, if they so desire, to initiate fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

¶28