The High Court rejected the writ petition concerning disciplinary proceedings and retirement benefits. Finding the Tribunal's observations consonant with evidence, the Court held that it was not inclined to interfere given the respondent's impending retirement on 30th April 2016.
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.
2485.16wp
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
______________________________________________________ 37 WRIT PETITION NO. 2485 OF 2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
ASHOK TOTARAM TAYADE
...
AGP for Petitioners: Mr.S.B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondent: Mr.Suryawanshi
Nitin B
...
CORAM:S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: APRIL 13, 2016
Heard learned AGP appearing for the
petitioners and learned Counsel for the
respondent – original applicant. With
their able assistance, perused the grounds
taken in the petition, annexures thereto
and the findings recorded by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
2Upon perusal of the findings recorded
by the the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal and in particular, from paragraph
10 onwards, we are of the opinion that
those findings are in consonance with the
2485.16wp
2
documents / evidence which was placed on
record. It is not necessary for us to
elaborate any further. Suffice it to say
that the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, taking into consideration the
inquiry report, observed that the
disciplinary authority has interfered in
the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer with prejudiced mind and by using
his own knowledge and letter written by
the M.L.A. It has also been observed in
the judgment that the appellate authority,
though agreed with the findings recorded
by the Inquiry Officer and competent
authority, still modified the order
without assigning any reasons.
3In that view of the matter, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, when the respondent – original
applicant will be retiring on 30th April,
2016 on attaining age of superannuation,
we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order.
Hence the petition stands rejected.
(SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J)(S.S. SHINDE, J)
kadam/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a case involving retirement and disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the High Court, noting the respondent's impending retirement, should exercise its power under Article 226 to set aside the findings of the Tribunal.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
Ashok Totaram Tayade
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court