Disposed

Shri. Atique Mohammed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014WP/3925/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner abandoned the writ petition. The court disposed of the petition but kept merit contentions in pending disciplinary proceedings open. It directed the administration to consider the prayer for transferring the enquiry to Pune within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as not pressed; contentions on disciplinary proceedings kept open; direction issued for consideration of prayer to transfer enquiry venue within two weeks.

Shri. Atique Mohammed Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane

20.WP.3925-14.doc

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3925 OF 2014

¶5

[Atique Mohammed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s Orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶7

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Ashok Madhukar Joshi and Mr. V.K. Bodhare, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Vishwajet S. Kapse, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 05^th AUGUST, 2014

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner, states that the petitioner is not pressing this Petition, however, all contentions in the pending disciplinary proceedings may be kept open. He has tendered across the bar an application made by the petitioner on 4^th April, 2014 to the Registrar General of this Court. The first prayer in the application is for setting aside the departmental enquiry and for revoking the suspension order. There is a prayer made in the alternative for transfer of the departmental enquiry to Pune or a place near Pune. The learned Senior

1 / 2

Deshmane

20.WP.3925-14.doc

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to decide the prayer made in the alternative in the said application in accordance with law before the next date of enquiry.

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent states that now the next date fixed in the enquiry is 24^th August, 2014 for recording of evidence.

¶17

The aforesaid prayers made by the petitioner deserves to be acceded to. Hence we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order :

¶18

(i) Writ Petition is disposed of as not pressed;

¶19

(ii) All contentions on merits of the pending disciplinary proceedings are kept open;

¶20

(iii) The Advocate on record for the petitioner shall supply a copy of the application dated 4^th April, 2014 to the learned Counsel representing the second respondent during the course of the day;

¶21

(iv) We direct that the second prayer made in the application for transfer of the departmental enquiry shall be considered by the High Court Administration / Competent Authority in accordance with law and appropriate decision be taken within a period of two weeks from today. The decision be communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶23

2 / 2

Shri. Atique Mohammed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Atique Mohammed Khan v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Kishore Dyanoba Shevkari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Pune and Ors.

Nachiket Yuvak Sangh through Mr. Mahesh Dera Vs Administration of Daman and Diu through Its Administrator and Ors.

Shri. Gulam Rasul Ishak Ansari Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Bhiwandi Nizampur and Ors.

Sanjay Parameshwar Ghodake Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development Department and Ors. Vs Shri. Abhimanyu Davlat Kamble and Ors.

M/S. Rajkumar Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.