Partly allowed

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary v. Shri. Ramesh Nagothkar

Bombay HC30 Jun 2016WP/3817/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Tribunal orders quashing departmental enquiries due to delay. Court set aside extent of quashing but directed State to act on reports within three months, partly allowing petitions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders quashing enquiries; directed State to act on reports within three months; liberty granted for further directions.

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

skc

¶3

905-WP-3932-16-ORS.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3932 OF 2016

¶7

The Government of Maharashtra .. Petitioner versus Shri G. S. Mahadik .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3817 OF 2016 The Government of Maharashtra .. Petitioner versus Shri Ramesh Nagothkar .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3818 OF 2016 The Government of Maharashtra .. Petitioner versus Shri A. B. Ghodeswar .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2016 The Government of Maharashtra .. Petitioner versus Shri K. E. Limje .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2016 The Government of Maharashtra .. Petitioner versus Shri Nandkumar Sable .. Respondent

¶8

1 of 3

¶9

skc 2 905-WP-3932-16-ORS.doc

¶10

Mr. A. I. Patel – AGP for State - Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Patil for Respondent No. 1 in WP 3932 of 2016, 3817 of 2016 and 4439 of 2016.

¶11

Mr. Vikram V. Pai for Respondent No. 1 in WP 4440 of 2016 and 3818 of 2016.

¶12

CORAM: V. M. KANADE AND M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 30 JUNE 2016

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1] These petitions were admitted by us on 27^th June 2016. However, taking into consideration the only issue which falls for consideration before us, on the request made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, we have taken up these matters for final disposal.

¶15

2] The State Government has filed these petitions being aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 11^th November 2014 and 16^th June 2015. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Tribunal has given a direction to the State to conclude departmental enquiry against the respondents within a period of six months and in the event of failure to complete the enquiry the Tribunal observed that departmental enquiries to stand quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in fact enquiries were completed within the stipulated period and reports were submitted on 13^th March 2015. However, action on the reports were not taken.

¶16

3] Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is a gross delay on the part of the

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

3 905-WP-3932-16-ORS.doc

¶19

skc

¶20

petitioner State in completing the departmental enquiries and despite further time being granted by the Tribunal, no action was taken by them and therefore the Tribunal was justified in quashing the enquiries.

¶21

4] In our view, though the Tribunal was justified in laying down an outer limit for disposal of the departmental action, it was certainly not justified in quashing the departmental enquiries on non completion of the enquiries within the stipulated period. We therefore set aside the impugned orders to the extent it quashes the departmental enquiries. We however direct the State Government to take action on the reports within three months from today. With these directions, writ petitions are partly allowed and are disposed of. Liberty is however granted to the respondents to apply for further directions and orders in the event no action is taken by the State Government within three months.

¶22

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

(V. M. KANADE, J.)

¶24

chandka

¶25

3 of 3

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary v. Shri. Ramesh Nagothkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary v. Shri. Ramesh Nagothkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Gangaram Bhasney Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Dattatray Shankar Salunkhe Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Jitendra Nagnath Kalyani

Shelendra Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Vs Shri G.S. Mahadik

The Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Vs Shri. Nandkumar Sable