Disposed

Mr. Gajanan S/O. Sanjay Charde v. State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Public Work, and Others

Bombay HC7 Jul 2016PIL/97/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 97 of 2015, the Nagpur Bench disposed of a petition seeking criminal prosecution and recovery of misappropriated funds. The court held that prayers for FIR and prosecution served their purpose as the FIR was subsequently registered, and recovery would follow from departmental proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with observations that prosecution prayer served its purpose; recovery depends on departmental proceedings.

Mr. Gajanan S/O. Sanjay Charde Vs State of Maha… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

pil97-15.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.97 OF 2015

¶5

Mr. Gajanan s/o Sanjay Charde

¶6

-Vrs.-

¶7

State of Mah. Through its Secretary,Department of Public Works, Mumbai &4 others.

¶8

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

¶9

Mrs. Smita Singalkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Rahul Tajne, advocate for respondent no.4.

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ . DATED : 7 th JULY, 2016

¶11

The petition has been filed with following prayer

¶12

clause 1 & 2.

¶13

(1) Direct the Respondent no.1 to initiate criminal prosecution against the persons involved in the Inquiry Report, dated 13^th May, 2015 at Annexure D.

¶14

(2) Further direct to register FIR as per the Inquiry report about the misappropriation of funds.

¶15

No doubt, there are other prayers also with regard to the direction to the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to recover the funds from the persons involved in the mis-appropriation.

¶16

No doubt that initially FIR was not filed. However, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 stating therein that the FIR is registered on 29.6.2016. The respondent no.4 has tendered apology for the delay in registering the FIR.

¶17

2 pil97-15.odt

¶18

Therefore, in so far as the prayer clauses 1 & 2 are concerned, the petition has served its purpose.

¶19

In so far as the other reliefs are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 makes a categorical statement that the departmental proceedings are initiated against the officers/employees who are prima facie found to be involved in the misappropriation.

¶20

We are sure that if in the departmental proceedings the officers/employees are held to be guilty, the Zilla Parishad would take necessary steps for recovering the amount from the persons who are found to be guilty for mis-appropriation.

¶21

The petition is, therefore, disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

Hirekhan

Mr. Gajanan S/O. Sanjay Charde v. State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Public Work, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Gajanan S/O. Sanjay Charde v. State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Public Work, and Others

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

Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar-Pande Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Mr. Shriprakash Neel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Land Revenue and Ors.

Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape and Anr. Vs the Central Adoption Resource Agency and Ors.

Shri Anwar Chandan Jamadar vs Kolhapur District Central Co.Op. Bank Ltd. through Its Chairman and Anr.

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch through Its President Shri. P. P. Goyal Vs State of Maharashtra through the Provincial Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Pune

Mr. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs Union of India through Solicitor General of India and Ors.

Kunal S/O Nitin Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra Dept. of Technical Education Thr. Secretary Mumbai and Others

Ganesh S/O Bhojram Parate Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Nandanwan, Nagpur and Others

Ganpat Barkuji Parteki (in Jail) Vs the State of Mahrashtra through Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison), East Division Nagpur

Anandrao Kisan Gedam Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Ashokappa S/O. Narayanappa Iregaonkar Vs the State of Maha., Dept. of Rural Water Supply, through Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Naresh S/O Laxminarayan Bhutada Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Akot Gramin, Akola and Another

Chetan S/O Mahesh Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Akot Gramin, Akola and Another