Writ petition challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside punishment for stagnation of pay. The single-judge bench found no fit case for interference and rejected the petition.
Writ petition rejected. No costs awarded.
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.
W.P.NO.1079/12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1079 of 2012
STATE OF MAH. AND OTHERS VERSUS
M. G. BHARSAKLE
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
CORAM : S. A. BOBDE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2012.
Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners.
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.09.2010 thereby setting aside the imposition of punishment of stagnating the respondent’s pay-scale for a period of two years.
The main contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he has been acquitted of the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the Departmental Enquiry was started and having been so acquitted, the State could not have initiated the Departmental Enquiry. The learned Tribunal has held that the enquiry could not have been initiated by the petitioner-State. This finding may not be correct in law, however, the learned Tribunal has found that in the Departmental
2 W.P.NO.1079/12
Enquiry, the prosecutrix, who has given evidence in the criminal case, did not give any evidence in the Departmental Enquiry and neither any witness was examined on behalf of the Department. The learned Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the findings are not sustainable and according to the Tribunal, the inquiry seems to have been initiated with a pre-determined mind.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for interference. Hence, rejected. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petition.
STATE OF MH
M. G. BHARSAKLE
S. A. BOBDE
P. B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
