Pradeep Vitthalrao More v. Chairman Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Omerga and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014WP/3497/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition challenging an order refusing to condone the petitioner's absenteeism. The court held the authorities correctly found evidence insufficient for condonation under Rule 50 and confirmed the administrative process complied with natural justice by noting the hearing held.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was rejected and the Rule was discharged.

Pradeep Vitthalrao More Vs Chairman Bharat… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Writ Petition No.3497/1999

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3497 OF 1999

¶5

Pradeep s/o Vitthalrao More, Age 34 years, Occ. Service, R/o Salegaon, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, C/o V.T. Birajdar, Advocate, Ajaynagar, At Post Omerga, District Osmanabad

¶6

... PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Chairman, Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad

¶9

Principal, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji College, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶10

Joint Director of Higher Education Grants, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Shri M.V. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mrs. M.S. Patni, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3

¶12

CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 2 nd September, 2014.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :

¶14

This petition challenges order dated 8.1.1999, passed

¶15

Writ Petition No.3497/1999

¶16

¶17

by Joint Director of Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, refusing to condone absence of the petitioner from duty between 14.10.1994 to 13.8.1996. The Joint Director examined the case as per the directions of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3152/1997. The facts leading to the litigation are as under :

¶18

The petitioner secured employment as Laboratory Assistant with respondent No.2. He attended duty till 13.10.1994 without any break. It is his case that, he suffered a medical condition/ ill health on 14.10.1994 and, therefore, could not attend his duty. It is his case that, he sent an application for leave to the respondent No.2 on 17.10.1994. When he reported back to duty on 13.8.1996, he was orally told that his services were terminated. Against this decision, he went to University & College Tribunal, Aurangabad. The respondent No.2 opposed his case on facts. Upon examining the facts, the learned Member of the Tribunal accepted the case of the management that grounds for condoning the absenteeism were not believable. As against this order, the petitioner came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3152/1997. At that stage, this Court observed that, the case of the petitioner could have been considered by competent authority under proviso to Rule 50 of the Maharashtra NonAgricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees)

¶19

Writ Petition No.3497/1999

¶20

¶21

Rules, 1984. Rule 50 reads as under :

¶22

"50. Deserter:The employee who absents from duty without permission for a period of more than thirty days, shall be deemed to be deserter and his services shall stand terminated automatically on the expiry of the period of thirty days.

¶23

Provided that, whenever the employee is not able to attend the duties as prescribed and not able to communicate reasons of his absence for the reasons beyond his control, the Competent Authority may, by a special order condone his absence."

¶24

The learned Joint Director considered the case on facts by examining documents and he held that the petitioner does not deserve condonation as contemplated by the proviso. As against this, this petition is filed in 1999. It remained pending since then. We expressed our doubt as to whether the petitioner would be interested in pressing this petition as we thought, in the meantime the petitioner might have secured some job elsewhere and that this event that occurred in his life way back in 1994 to 1996 would have been forgotten. But we found the petitioner present today before this Court and he wants to press the petition.

¶25

The question between the parties was whether the petitioner deserved condonation of his absenteeism. Rule 50 provided ample discretion to first the management and then to the Joint Director. These authorities rejected the petitioner's case on facts. They held that, the petitioner did not deserve condonation. Not only the conclusions are concurrent, but since

¶26

Writ Petition No.3497/1999

¶27

¶28

they depended on subjective satisfaction of the facts of the case, we are not inclined nor we are allowed to go into facts and take another view.

¶29

The only question that arose between the parties even before the Joint Director was a question of fact and that was, whether the petitioner made out a case for condonation of his absenteeism or in other words, whether the case put forward by the petitioner that because of his ill health he was unable to attend his duties, is believable. The evidence that was brought by the petitioner in support of his case was found to be insufficient.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the impugned order does not mention elaborate reasons as to why his client's case was rejected. Indeed the order is not quite eloquent about reasons. However, the Joint Director mentioned that he had called petitioner to submit say and all necessary documents and that he verified documents and heard petitioner. Order shows that, he perused the documents submitted before him by both the parties and he concurred with the view taken by the management. Principles of natural justice have been followed and a decision taken. Since this order was an administrative order, we do not expect it to be like a judicial order giving reasons.

¶31

Writ Petition No.3497/1999

¶32

¶33

We are unable to take another view for reasons

¶34

mentioned above. Petition should fail. Rule is discharged. There is no substance in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is rejected.

¶35

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

Pradeep Vitthalrao More v. Chairman Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Omerga and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Vitthalrao More v. Chairman Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Omerga 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

Shivaji Education Society Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Sant Govindbaba Shishkan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ganeshwadi Sonai Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Namdeo Karbhari Kankarale and Ors.

Khurshid Khan Nijam Khan Jamadar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.