Partly allowed

Rajendra Sudam Karle v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012WP/11166/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging that a government employee held two posts simultaneously, the High Court held that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing. The court quashed an order allowing the employee to continue working pending a fresh inquiry and directed the authorities to afford a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.08.2010 quashed; Respondent No. 4 permitted to continue duties pending fresh decision after hearing by 27.09.2012.

Rajendra Sudam Karle Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P.11166.10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11166 OF 2010

¶4

Rajendra Sudam Karle ...PETITIONER.

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and others...RESPONDENTS.

¶7

...

¶8

 Shri L.H.Kawale,Advocate holding for
 Shri K.J.Suryawanshi,Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1
 Shri V.R.Sonwalkar,Advocate for Resdts.No.2&3
 Shri A.V.Patil,Advocate holding for
 Shri V.D.Gunale,Advocate for Respondent NO.4

¶9

CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND
 SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,JJ.

¶10

 DATE : 07.08.2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶13

consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is heard finally.

¶14

2. The petitioner is villager, who complains

¶15

that respondent no. 4 was not working properly as Anganwadi Karyakarti and was holding two posts

¶16

2 W.P.11166.10

¶17

simultaneously by using two different names. This
grievance of the petitioner and other villagers
found favour with Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
who recommended the proper action and accordingly
the Child Development Project Officer (Hereinafter
referred to as "CDPO" for short) passed order
against respondent no. 4, which she assailed by
by filing appeal before respondent no. 2 Chief

¶18

Executive Officer. Respondent no. 2 has on
09.08.2010 by the impugned order set aside the
order of CDPO and asked respondent no. 4 to
execute bond undertaking not to commit mistakes in
future, to reside at headquarter and to show
positive improvement in her work in next two
months.

¶19

3. Mr. Kawale holding for Mr. Suryawanshi,

¶20

learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
order dated 09.08.2010 is passed without extending

¶21

any opportunity to the present petitioner. He
further contended that leniency shown therein is
misplaced.

¶22

3 W.P.11166.10

¶23

4. Advocate Mr. Sonwalkar for respondents no. 2

¶24

and 3 submits that the Chief Executive Officer has
passed the order after taking into consideration
all the aspects, however, he is not in a
position to state whether the Chief Executive
Officer has extended opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

¶25

5. Mr. Patil learned counsel for respondent no.
4 states that none of the grievances made in the
complaint by the petitioner and his colleague were
serious. Said grievances were looked into by the
Chief Executive Officer, who is Administrative
head and after taking proper safeguards and as he
found it necessary to retain respondent no.4 in
service, the impugned order is passed. His
contention is, exercise of discretion by
respondent no.2 cannot be said to be erroneous and
perverse.

¶26

6. Without prejudice to the defence above,
Advocate Mr. Patil submits that there cannot be

¶27

4 W.P.11166.10

¶28

any public interest litigation in service matters
and the petitioner cannot claim opportunity of
hearing. He contends that present petition is

¶29

misconceived.

¶30

7. We are not in a position to accept the

¶31

preliminary objections raised by Advocate Mr.
Patil. The petitioner is resident of village,
where respondent no. 4 used to work as Anganwadi
Karyakarti. The grievances made by him are
already on record. These grievances are looked
into by the respondents no. 2 and 3. The Deputy
Chief Executive Officer conducted the enquiry, and
found substance in the grievance. Therefore, the
order of termination of service was passed by
respondent No.3 CDPO, who is competent authority,
who is immediate superior of respondent no. 4. It
is admitted position that the petitioner was not
given opportunity of hearing by respondent no.2
Chief Executive Officer.

¶32

5 W.P.11166.10

¶33

8. In this situation, we quash and set aside
the order dated 09.08.2010. However, looking to
the nature of the activity of Anganwadi, we permit
respondent no.4 to continue to discharge her
duties as Anganwadi karkatrti till respondent no.2
takes appropriate decision in the matter.

¶34

9. We direct the petitioner and respondent no.

¶35

4 to appear before respondent no. 2 on 27.09.2012.
Respondent no.2 shall thereafter attempt to take
fresh decision within a further period of four
months. Till respondent no.2 passes further
appropriate orders in the matter, service of
respondent no.4 shall not be terminated.

¶36

10. The petition is thus partly allowed. No

¶37

costs. Needless to mention that all contentions

¶38

and defences raised by the parties can be looked
into by respondent no. 2.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/-

¶40

MTK

¶41

[SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.]

¶42

6 W.P.11166.10

Rajendra Sudam Karle v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Sudam Karle 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Sahebrao Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Subhash Namdeo Borikar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Reliance Communictions Limited and Reliance Infratel Ltd. through Authorised Signatory Mukund Page Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rani Pandurang Landge Vs Swami Vivekanand Rashtriya Prabodhan Sanstha through Secretary and Ors.

Popat Karbhari Bachkar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pralhad Maruti Sirsat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.