Petitioner challenged penalty order and claim for Night Watchman appointment. Court held order was not arbitrary, employment barred due to detention for non-appearance, and rejected writ petition.
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.
crwp185.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.185/2016
Pradip s/o Murlidharsingh Thakur ..vs.. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and anr.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2016
Heard.
Looking to the grounds which have been taken into consideration by the concerned authority while imposing the penalty, it cannot be said that the order is vitiated by arbitrariness or perversity.
Insofar as the claim for giving the petitioner the work of Night Watchman, it cannot be considered since the petitioner was been required to be arrested since he did not report to the jail on the specific time and thus the duty of Night Watchman cannot be given to him. The said reason cannot be said to be erroneous.
No case is made out for interference in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Professional charges of Mrs. S. P. Dhotre, learned appointed counsel are quantified at Rs.1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order imposing penalty is arbitrary or perverse.
Whether petitioner can be employed as Night Watchman despite failure to appear at jail for arrest.
Whether writ petition should be entertained in the present facts.
Pradip s/o Murlidharsingh Thakur
The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and anr.
B. R. Gavai
V. M. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
