Disposed

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilalji Bhutada v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, through Its President Mr. Ghanshyamdas Sangidas Panpalia and 8 Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2012WP/578/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single order directing expedited conclusion of a service inquiry within three months, permitting cross-examination, and allowing partial withdrawal of deposited subsistence allowance.

What did the court decide?

Directing inquiry to conclude within three months; permitting petitioner to withdraw Rs. 1,50,000 from deposited funds.

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilalji Bhutada Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

88wp578.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 578 OF 2012

¶5

(Dr. Gopal s/o Ranilal Bhutada vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Ors.)

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

M.T. JOSHI, JJ. AUGUST 08, 2012.

¶9

Heard Shri Kalraiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4, Mrs. Khade, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 and Shri Sambre, learned GP for respondents No. 7 & 9.

¶10

The petitioner has requested that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance by the management, he has been seriously prejudiced and in the on going inquiry, he has not been given proper opportunity so as to enable him to conclude the cross examination of the management witness No. 1.

¶11

Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions states that the management will examine three more witnesses.

¶12

We direct that the petitioner should cross examine witness No. 1 and complete his cross examination on Saturday i.e. on 11^th August 2012. The inquiry sitting shall be held from 10.30 A.M. to 5.00

¶13

¶14

88wp578.12

¶15

P.M. so as to enable the petitioner to conclude the cross examination.

¶16

Equally, the management will file the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of remaining witnesses and give a copy of the same in advance to the petitioner. Even to cross examine those witnesses, the Inquiry Officer may contemplate holding the cross examination preferably on any Saturday so that the cross examination of other witnesses can also be concluded. In any event, we direct the inquiry to be concluded as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today.

¶17

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- out of the sum deposited by the management in this court. The balance sum will be permitted to be withdrawn if the inquiry is concluded within a period of three months as directed above, failing which the amount which is lying deposited in this court can be withdrawn by the management without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, within four weeks from the expiry of this period or upon conclusion of the Inquiry as directed above.

¶18

Needless to mention that the sum which the petitioner has to recover, can be recovered by him irrespective of the disposal of this writ petition which in any event challenges the suspension and the non payment of subsistence allowance on account of prolongation of the inquiry. All contentions of both

¶19

¶20

88wp578.12

¶21

sides in that behalf so also on merits of the charges are kept open.

¶22

Now the inquiry is directed to be concluded within a period of three months and equally the petitioner will be getting part of the amount. If the inquiry is not concluded within the stipulated period for some reasons which are beyond the control of the petitioner, or if it is concluded by passing an adverse order, the petitioner may make an application for withdrawal of the balance sum while impugning the said orders and thereafter the management will not be permitted to withdraw the amount but shall have to abide by the requisite orders subject ofcourse to its legal rights.

¶23

As far as other amounts are concerned, all contentions of the petitioner and the Management are kept open and they can take recourse to all the remedies, as are available in law for recoveries in addition to any challenge to the adverse orders in the inquiry proceedings.

¶24

Writ Petition is disposed of as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

*GS.

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilalji Bhutada v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, through Its President Mr. Ghanshyamdas Sangidas Panpalia and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilalji Bhutada v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, through Its President Mr. Ghanshyamdas Sangidas Panpalia and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheshkumar S/O Puranlal Jain Vs Maharashtra State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., through Its Chief Engineer

Rameshwar Jagoji Pawar Vs the C.E.O. Zp, Washim and Anr.

Sau. Madhuri W/O Mukund Landge Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Hans Shikshan Krida Wa Vyayam Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its President and Anr. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 4 Ors.

Kirankumar Sheshrao Rathod and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Thr Its Secretary, and Ot

Satish S/O Utamrao Dahatonde and 2 Others Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division and Another