In PIL99.13 of 2013, the court disposed of a petition seeking directions against the State of Maharashtra for inaction regarding an Executive Engineer accused of misappropriation, noting that the accused was not a party to the suit.
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 PIL99.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.99 OF 2013
[Mr. Prashant s/o Narayanrao Kimmatkar and one .vs. State of Maharashtra and one]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri R.R. Vyas, counsel for the petitioners,
Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 10, 2015.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the State of Maharashtra to take action on the basis of report submitted by the respondent no.2 on a complaint made against Shri Prashant N. Pagrut.
It is the case of the petitioners, who claim to have filed this petition in Public Interest, that Shri Prashant Pagrut had committed serious illegalities while discharging his duties as Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department. It is stated that though the said person had caused great loss to the public exchequer and had misappropriated a sum of rupees more than Rs.46 Lacs, the State has not initiated any action against him.
The respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit-inreply on 25.3.2015. It is stated therein that the departmental inquiry is conducted against Shri Prashant Pagrut and after a few charges against him were proved, penalty of stoppage of one increment for two years has been passed. It is stated that in view of the imposition of the punishment on Shri Prashant Pagrut on 12.3.2015, in furtherance of the departmental inquiry, nothing would survive in the Public Interest Litigation specially when it is held that due to the misconduct of Shri Prashant Pagrut, no loss was caused to the State Government.
2 PIL99.13.odt
On a reading of the affidavit-in-reply and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it would not be proper to permit the petitioner to prosecute the litigation any further. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents-State to take action against Shri Prashant Pagrut on the basis of the report. The petitioner had not joined Shri Prashant Pagrut as a party respondent. It appears that a departmental inquiry is conducted against Shri Prashant Pagrut and the penalty is imposed on him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. It would not be proper for this Court to consider in a Public Interest Litigation, whether the penalty imposed upon Shri Prashant Pagrut is proportionate to the act of misconduct proved against him, specially when Shri Prashant Pagrut is not a party to this litigation.
In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulande
Prashant s/o Narayanrao Kimmatkar and others
State of Maharashtra
VASANTI A. NAIK
A. M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
