Writ petition challenging findings of an Inquiry Officer dismissed for lack of evidence and documents supporting the petitioner's oral contention, as the petition was dismissed with costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 3604 of 2011
Prashant Bapurao Nawale
V/s.
The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Nagpur and three others.
_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. D. Duvvuri, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. R. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 served.
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 12, 2012.
Considered in the light of arguments
advanced. Contention is, findings recorded by Inquiry Officer are perverse. We, therefore, called upon learned counsel for petitioner to show reply to charge-sheet. He states that it is not filed with the petition.
Our attention is invited to page No. 108, Item No. 1, where the incident of misconduct is looked into. The consideration does not show the stand being raised before us. Charge-sheet shows that electric supply was released on 09/11/2005 by petitioner to Shri. Krishanarao
S. Radke and it is admitted position that intimation of that
2
release was sent by him on 05/07/2006. Charge-sheet shows, that for one year the supply was used by Shri. Krishanarao Radke without any meter.
The oral contention of learned counsel is, after supply was released certain procedural formalities were required to be completed. These procedural formalities were not completed by 31/03/2006, on which date, the petitioner was transferred to another post. After getting knowledge of the completion of those procedural formalities on 05/07/2006, he has submitted the report to concerned officer. Other contention is, the documents on record show that the billing had commenced from the date on which the supply was released.
The document in support of oral contention and defence is not before us on record. Hence, we are not in a position to accept it.
In this situation, we are not in a position to find anything wrong with the findings reached by Inquiry Officer. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse.
Whether the petitioner can show reply to the charge-sheet was not filed.
Prashant Bapurao Nawale
The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Nagpur
Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4
B.P. Dharmadhikari
P.D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
