Partly allowed

Raosaheb Munjaji Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2011WP/1550/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order quashing his service as Assistant Secretary due to alleged misconduct. Court found reversion was made without departmental inquiry after charges were denied. Impugned order quashed; inquiry directed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Divisional Joint Registrar dated 15.1.2010 quashed and set aside. Liberty granted to complete departmental inquiry within two months. If exonerated, petitioner to be recalled as Assi

Raosaheb Munjaji Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1550 OF 2010

¶4

Raosaheb s/o. Munjaji Gadekar, R/o. Bori, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

¶5

....Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Directorate of Marketing, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32 & Ors.

¶8

....Respondents.

¶9

Mr. S.S. Choudhary with Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocates for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4.

¶10

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1st March, 2011.

¶11

COURT'S ORDER :

¶12

Heard Advocate Shri. Choudhary with Advocate Shri. Suryawanshi appearing for petitioner. Employer has raised two contentions. His first contention is, petitioner was recruited directly on the post of Assistant Secretary of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) and therefore, could not have been reverted on the post of Clerk. His second contention is, on allegation of extracting amount from farmers, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter, without giving any chargesheet

¶13

¶14

and without recording any evidence, the Sub Committee of APMC has reverted him. This is in breach of principle of natural justice. According to him, both these challenges have not been appropriately dealt with by the appellate authority namely Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶15

Shri. S.V. Mundhe, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4/APMC has supported the impugned order. He contends that petitioner was promoted as Assistant Secretary and hence, his reversion is in accordance with law. He points out that necessary opportunity to submit reply to the allegations was given to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also supported the impugned order.

¶17

With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. Impugned order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar on 15.1.2010 does not show the post on which petitioner was recruited. The question, whether petitioner could have been reverted, has been therefore not gone into. According to Advocate Shri. Mundhe, the question was not raised before respondent No. 2. However, as I find that the issue arises, the same could have been looked into.

¶18

In any case, perusal of impugned order reveals that because of serious complaints about recording weight of cotton, petitioner was

¶19

¶20

suspended on 2.12.2008. He was then given a show cause notice along with the charges to be leveled against him on 13.7.2009. He submitted reply within stipulated time and denied those charges. Said material was being placed before the Sub Committee dealing with employees on 25.7.2009 and that Sub Committee resolved to revert petitioner. The findings recorded by Divisional Joint Registrar therefore clearly show that no departmental inquiry was conducted against petitioner when he had denied charges. It was obligatory for the respondent No. 3/ APMC to examine witnesses and to bring material on record to show his indulgence in malpractice. That has not been done.

¶21

Shri. Mundhe, during the course of argument, points out that petitioner has already joined on lower post i.e. the post of Clerk. He further states that another departmental inquiry on account of his alleged absence is going on.

¶22

As holding of departmental inquiry against petitioner in present matter is also essential, Shri. Mundhe as also Shri. Choudhary agree that pending inquiry as also inquiry into the alleged lapses which led to his suspension on 2.12.2008 can be conducted and completed within a period of two months from today.

¶23

The respondent No. 3 is accordingly given liberty to complete the departmental inquiry against petitioner in relation to the misconduct

¶24

¶25

which led to his reversion within a period of two months from today.

¶26

For the said purpose, the impugned order of Divisional Joint Registrar dated 15.1.2010 is quashed and set aside.

¶27

If the petitioner is exonerated in departmental inquiry, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee shall recall the order dated 31.7.2009 and shall permit him to resume duties as Assistant Secretary in accordance with law.

¶28

APMC as also petitioner to cooperate for expeditious disposal of inquiry within stipulated time.

¶29

Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs.

¶30

[ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶31

ssc/wp1550.10

Raosaheb Munjaji Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Munjaji Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Baban@Martand Hiraji Avhad Vs Atmaram Piraji Avhad

Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited Vs All Marathwada Kamgar Union and Anr.

Zilla Doodh Sangh Karmachari Kruti Samiti through President Vs Jalgaon Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit Jalgaon through Managing Director and Ors.

Kesharchand Bansilal Pande Vs Gopinath Ramkrishna Pawar (Died) Lrs Sushilabai and Ors.

Ajay Gopalrao Firake Vs the President Lewa Education Union Jalgaon and Ors.

Shivaji Gopalrao Lomate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.