Dismissed

Sunil Digambar Borole v. Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016WP/1408/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a dismissed Junior Assistant challenging his termination order. The High Court rejected claims that findings were perverse, reliance on un-cross-examined police statements was erroneous, or the procedure was defective, holding the decision proportionate to charges.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and rule dismissed; no order as to costs.

Sunil Digambar Borole Vs Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 1408/05

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1408/2005

¶5

Sunil s/o Digambar Borole,
age 45 yrs., occu.nil,
r/o 31, Datta Colony, Deopur,
Dhule.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] Dhule Zilla Parishd, Dhule. Through its Chief Executive Officer.

¶9

2] Addl.Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶10

3] State of Maharashtra.

¶11

...Respondents...

¶12

 .....

¶13

Shri L.V. Sangeet, Advocate h/f Shri V.J. Dixit, Advocate
for petitioner.

¶14

None present for respondent no.1 though served.
Smt.M.A. Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶15

 .....

¶16

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶17

DATE: 02.12.2016

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.):

¶19

1]The petitioner at the relevant time was working

¶20

as Junior Assistant in Minor Irrigation Division, Zilla

¶21

Parishad, Dhule. Departmental enquiry was initiated

¶22

against the petitioner. Upon completion of departmental

¶23

WP 1408/05

¶24

- 2 -

¶25

enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is guilty of
the charges leveled against him. The petitioner came to
be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an

¶26

appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal is
dismissed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶27

2]Shri Sangeet, learned counsel for th petitioner

¶28

submits that the order passed by the authority
terminating the services of the petitioner is based upon
the material collected during the course of investigation

¶29

by the Police and the statement made u/s 162 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The findings recorded by

¶30

the Enquiry Officer are perverse and against the record.

¶31

The learned counsel submits that the proceedings of the
departmental enquiry were improper. The same was during
the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The petitioner

¶32

was not given proper opportunity to defend the said
departmental enquiry. According to the learned counsel,

¶33

it was erroneous to rely on the statements of the
witnesses in the criminal case u/s 162 of the Cr.P.C.
overlooking the fact that the said witnesses were neither
cross-examined nor those statements were verified.

¶34

WP 1408/05

¶35

- 3 -

¶36

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner could
not get proper opportunity to put forth his defence and
to examine the evidence. The appellate authority also
did not consider the case put forth by the petitioner and
has casually dealt with the appeal. The said order is
illegal.

¶37

3]We have heard the learned AGP for the respondent
nos.2 & 3. None appeared today for the respondent no.1
though served.

¶38

4]The departmental proceedings were initiated

¶39

against the petitioner. Two articles of charges were
framed under memorandum dated 14.1.1993 and one more
charge under memorandum dated 27.2.1996 was framed. The
Enquiry Officer examined four witnesses. The petitioner

¶40

is also an accused in the criminal case. In Criminal
Complaint No.424/1990, the petitioner and his father both
were accused. All charges are held to be proved by the

¶41

Enquiry Officer and thereafter decision has been taken
terminating the services of the petitioner. It has been

¶42

observed that ample opportunity has been given to the
petitioner. On the contrary, the ;petitioner did not
submit proper defence to the charges. The premises of

¶43

WP 1408/05

¶44

- 4 -

¶45

the petitioner were raided by the Anti-Corruption
Department. The property was sealed by the Court. Three
offences of Crime Investigation Department and one
offence of Anti-Corruption Department were pending
against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the
income tax returns of two years after lapse of five years
and that too after issuance of notices by the Income Tax

¶46

Department. Upon enquiry, it is found that the
petitioner has amassed assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income. The petitioner was appointed as

¶47

a Water Boy. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Peon and
was at the relevant time working as Junior Assistant. No
explanation could be put forth by the petitioner about

¶48

the disproportionate assets acquired by him. Even the
criminal case filed against the petitioner has culminated
into conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner, it
appears, has filed an appeal before this Court and the
same is pending.

¶49

5]Be that as it may. The extent of proof in the
departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings would
be different. The standard of proof required in the
criminal proceedings would be on higher pedestal than

¶50

WP 1408/05

¶51

that of a departmental enquiry. Even the statement of

¶52

the appellant recorded before the Enquiry Officer would
throw light on the conduct of the present petitioner
wherein the answers given by the petitioner are also
recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report. The same
is self-speaking and is damaging to the case of the
petitioner himself.

¶53

6]Even otherwise, this Court, while considering a
petition arising out of disciplinary proceedings, would
be concerned with the due adherence to the procedure and

¶54

not with the ultimate decision taken unless it is shown

¶55

that the decision taken is highly disproportionate to the

¶56

charges leveled against him. For the charges leveled

¶57

against the petitioner, the decision taken by the

¶58

disciplinary authority cannot be said to be
disproportionate.

¶59

7]Considering the above, writ petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

¶60

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶61

ndk/ c2121625.doc

Sunil Digambar Borole v. Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Digambar Borole v. Dhule Zilla Parishad Dhule 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

Sunil Gangaram Waghmare Vs the Director of Archives Govt. of Mah Elphinstone College

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde Vs Veeraswami Nandaiyya Nagula

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap Vs S P Jaiswal and Others

Pandurang Rukhmaji Koturwar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha Karmad, Tq Parola, Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Machindra Rangnath Jadhav Vs Kojagiri Machindra Jadhav