Dismissed

Shri. Tukaram Kashiram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2015WP/8133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addressed a petition seeking ₹1 Crore compensation for alleged infringement of fundamental rights due to a delayed departmental enquiry after retirement. The court refused to entertain the compensation prayer, directing the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; prayer for compensation rejected. Petitioner directed to avail alternate remedies.

Shri. Tukaram Kashiram Choudhary Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

WP8133-3.2

1/2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8133 OF 2013

¶7

Tukaram Kashiram Choudhary versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

...Petitioner.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Rajan Malkani for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶13

3^rd February, 2015.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The grievance of the Petitioner is that he retired on 31^st January, 2004. On the day of retirement, Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings for conducting an enquiry. The enquiry continued after his retirement and in the year 2008 the enquiry authority made the following findings in paragraph 16 of the report which reads as under :

¶16

“16. The Presenting Officer's views that Shri Chaudhary had breached in principle, the instructions of the D.G.P. needs to be viewed as a technical lapse. In the context of the narration of this case as it appears from Shri Chaudhary's explanations, submissions and the proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry (as per the Roznamas) the benefit of doubt and balance of convenience would be in Shri Chaudhary's favour. The Inquiring Authority would therefore, not recommend that this charge be pressed against Shri T.K. Chaudhary.”

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's reputation was damaged and considering the agony which

WP8133-3.2

2/2

PNP

he had to go through all these years, compensation of Rs.1 Crore be awarded to the Petitioner as redressal of his infringement of fundamental right.

¶22

In the facts, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer for grant of compensation in the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the said purpose, the Petitioner may have recourse to alternate remedies as permissible in law. The Petition is dismissed.

¶23

(Naresh H. Patil, J.)

¶24

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Shri. Tukaram Kashiram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Tukaram Kashiram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept 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

Shri. Sanjay R. Tiwari Vs the Commissioner, Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Sujata Baban Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Finance Dept - Salex Tax and Ors.

Maruti Pandurang Shinde and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Shri. D.B. Pawar Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Pune and Ors.

Mr. Yedery Pandurang Rao Vs Union Bank of India and Ors.