Dismissed

Satishkumar B. Mishra v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016WP/3283/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing the petitioner’s employment termination case. Court held no manifest illegality existed and dismissed the petition for abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs on account of abuse of process and absence of manifest illegality.

Satishkumar B. Mishra Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 3283-14.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3283 OF 2014

¶5

Satishkumar B. Mishra

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances
Mr. Chandan Alhani i/by
Mr. Vikas K. Mahanagare	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar a/w
Mr. M.S. Bhardwaj	Advocate for the Respondent / UOI

¶11

CORAM : D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶12

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶13

DATE : MARCH 2, 2016.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition being

¶16

aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the Central

¶17

Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 602 of

¶18

2011 and 304 of 2013. By the said order, the O.A. preferred

¶19

by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

¶20

In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶22

wp 3283-14.doc

¶23

would be necessary to state a few facts which are as under:-

¶24

The petitioner was working in Military Engineering Service. He retired from service on superannuation on 31.12.2004 when he was working as Assistant Engineer Electrical / Mechanical at Pune. The petitioner faced a Departmental Enquiry (D.E.) pursuant to charge sheet dated

¶25

28.8.1986 on the following charges:-

¶26

"1. MES-220088 Shri SB Mishra, AE E/M while employed as Supdt E/M Gde I in the office of CWE Deolali during the period 23 Jan 76 to 30 Nov 84 had sent a pseudonymous complaint in the name of SS Wagh of Nasik to Lt Gen PB Puri, Ex E-in-C, Army HQ, New Delhi making allegations against MES officials at Deolali. The allegations contained in the complaint were found to be baseless. Manuscript of the said complaint has been proved by Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt of India, Hyderabad, to be in the hand of Shri SB Mishra, AE E/M. The contents of the typed complaint dated 29 Feb 84 exactly tally with that of the manuscript aforesaid.

¶27

Shri SB Mishra, also gave a false statement to the Investigating Officer, Major IS Varma, detailed to investigate the aforesaid complaint, that the manuscript of the complaint was not in his own hand.

¶28

Shri SB Mishra, AE E/M by his above actions has committed an offence of gross misconduct and an act of unbecoming of a Govt Servant, thereby violating Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964."

¶29

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶30

wp 3283-14.doc

¶31

It is an admitted fact that initially, the petitioner was

¶32

imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement, however, thereafter, the punishment was modified and reduced to stoppage of next increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and in a manner not affecting the pension of the petitioner. This order was passed by the competent authority on 22.10.2003. The petitioner preferred

¶33

a representation against the said order and also sought second review of the same. The second review came to be rejected by order dated 25.5.2011 which was impugned in the O.A.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far

¶35

as pseudonymous complaints are concerned, paragraph 10A

¶36

of Army Order 1/96 states as under:-

¶37

"Action against the complainant for leveling false allegations may be initiated, depending on the merits of each case. However, in order not to discourage complainant, where the complainant has been able to prove his bonafide, though even partly correct allegations, action may not be initiated against him."

¶38

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶39

wp 3283-14.doc

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, no enquiry was held in relation to corruption

¶41

charges in pseudonymous complaint and hence, action ought not to have been initiated against the petitioner. As far as this contention is concerned, the charge clearly states

¶42

that pseudonymous complaint made by the petitioner was found to be baseless, hence, Army Order No. 1/97 would not

¶43

come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶44

Thus, the contention of the petitioner appears to be that the departmental authorities had committed serious error and illegality in holding that the alleged pseudonymous complaint did not warrant any further investigation. As stated earlier, the charge clearly states

¶45

that pseudonymous complaint was made without any basis and the said charge has been held to be proved against the petitioner. In the Departmental Enquiry, it was established that the petitioner was the author of pseudonymous complaint. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all

¶46

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶47

wp 3283-14.doc

¶48

these facts as well as other facts and thereafter, dismissed the O.A. In view of the facts discussed, we find no manifest illegality in the impugned order, hence, this petition is dismissed with costs.

¶49

Earlier the penalty imposed on the petitioner was of compulsory retirement. That penalty was reduced to stoppage of next increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and in a manner not affecting the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner has already suffered the penalty imposed on him years ago. Looking to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has abused the process of this Court, hence, this petition is dismissed with costs.

¶50

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶51

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5

Satishkumar B. Mishra v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishkumar B. Mishra v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Anr.

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

Ram Kumar Chaubey Vs the Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Official Liquidator of Firth (India Steel Company Limited and 5 Others

Shri. Anand Dhundiraj Shenolikar and Anr. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar, Vs the Sup. Engineet

Smt. Milan Ganesh Bansode Vs the Project Director and Superintending Engineer and Ors.

The Commissioner, State Intelligence Dept. (M.S.) Mumbai Vs Shri Sunil Sadashiv Padave