Dismissed

Arun Gendalal Kudiya v. the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai through Its Registrar General and Another

Bombay HC5 Dec 2016WP/12025/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging removal from service as a peon and seeking reinstatement based on subsequent criminal acquittal. Court held that subsequent criminal acquittal does not affect the finality of the departmental enquiry order dismissing the appeal, and the petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arun Gendalal Kudiya Vs the High Court of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 12025.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

36 WRIT PETITION NO. 12025 OF 2016

¶5

ARUN GENDALAL KUDIYA VERSUS

¶6

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. H.D. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2:Mr. N.B. Khandare

¶8

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Date: December 05, 2016

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1 A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, who was working as a Peon, in the District Court, Ahmednagar, for behaving in disorderly manner and entering the chamber of the Presiding Officer, in drunken state. During the conduct of enquiry, charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and major penalty of removal from service was inflicted. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been turned down. The order of removal as well as the order dismissing the departmental appeal were subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition No.4621/2009 presented by the petitioner. This Court declined to cause interference in the matter and dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶11

{2} wp 12025.16.odt

¶12

2 The petitioner contends that, the Criminal case initiated against the petitioner before the JMFC Court bearing S.T.C. No.7560/2006, has resulted in his acquittal and as such, he is entitled to be reinstated in employment.

¶13

3 It must be noted that, in the departmental enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges leveled against him and punishment of removal from service has been imposed against him. Order issued in the departmental enquiry proceedings has attained finality by virtue of dismissal of departmental appeal, as well as the writ petition presented by the petitioner. The subsequent order of acquittal recorded by the criminal Court has no bearing on the departmental enquiry proceedings and penalty imposed thereunder.

¶14

4 The petition is devoid of substance and stands dismissed.

¶15

( SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶16

vbd

Arun Gendalal Kudiya v. the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai through Its Registrar General and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arun Gendalal Kudiya v. the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai through Its Registrar General and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumant Trimbak Mali Vs the Discipllnary Authority and Another

Surekha Namdeo Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanghamitra Pralhad Dhawale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunita Raghunath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sai Management System through Its Proprietor Pradeep Laxmanrao Pawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chaya Raju Magare Vs Gitanjali Gupta and Others