Dismissed

Ganesh S/O Sitaram Raut v. the Commandant, 45TH Battalian C.R.P.F. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012WP/4172/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the termination of a cook from C.R.P.F. services. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a second show cause notice was not mandatory. The court noted the enquiry report was served and found no prejudice to the petitioner regarding his termination. It relied on AIR 1991 SC 471 and (2008) 9 SCC 31.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ganesh S/O Sitaram Raut Vs the Commandant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp4172.09-Orde r

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETN. NO.4172/2009

¶5

Ganesh Sitaram Raut

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Commandant, C.R.P.F. and another

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Shri N.P.Pathan, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Shri S.K.Mishra, ASGI for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 21.08.2012.

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 25/11/2004 as also the orders of Appellate and Revisional Authorities rejecting the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of termination dated 25/11/2004.

¶15

The petitioner was working as a cook with the respondents and since the petitioner was absent from duty without prior leave, he was charged to be a deserter. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The services of the petitioner were terminated by an order

¶16

wp4172.09-Orde r

¶17

2/4

¶18

dated 25/11/2004. The petitioner filed departmental appeal and revision against the order of termination but the same were dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondents had furnished the enquiry report to the petitioner, the second show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment was not issued. In effect, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not asked to meet the recommendations of the enquiry officer in the matter of imposition of the punishment. In support of the aforesaid and the only submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 (Union of India and others v. Mohd.Ramzan Khan) .

¶19

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General supported the order passed by the Authorities and submitted that it is now well settled position of law that the second show cause notice is not necessary. It is submitted that a copy of the enquiry report was duly served on the petitioner. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that in any case the petitioner has not pointed out the prejudice which may have been caused to the petitioner on the omission to

¶20

wp4172.09-Orde r

¶21

3/4

¶22

issue the second show cause notice in regard to the proposed punishment. The learned Assistant Solicitor General relied on the decision reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 (Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja) in this regard.

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no merit in the writ petition inasmuch as the judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 (Union of India and others v. Mohd.Ramzan Khan) on

¶24

which the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied does not support the case of the petitioner at all. In fact,

¶25

the judgment refers to the deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is held in the said judgment that though

¶26

a second opportunity is not mandatory, it would be necessary for the employer to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent. In the instant case, admittedly, the enquiry report has been served on the petitioner. Firstly, a second opportunity was not mandatory and secondly, the petitioner has not shown any prejudice to the petitioner on the omission to issue a second show cause notice, as the appeal memo and the writ petition are silent in this regard. The

¶27

wp4172.09-Orde r

¶28

4/4

¶29

judgment reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 (Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash

¶30

Chandra Ahuja) helps the case of the respondents.

¶31

Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same

¶32

is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

KHUNTE

Ganesh S/O Sitaram Raut v. the Commandant, 45TH Battalian C.R.P.F. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O Sitaram Raut v. the Commandant, 45TH Battalian C.R.P.F. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Mohammad Talib Mohammad Musa Vs Sk. Issak Sk. Ismail and 2 Others

Maroti S/O Dadaji Atre Vs District Judge, Yavatmal

Shri. Tukaram Shikshan Sanstha, Thr Its Secretary, Malewada Vs State of Maha. Ministry of Education, Mumbai and Other