Dismissed

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

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016WP/8933/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her husband's death. The husband of the petitioner was dismissed for actionable absence after being absent from duty for approximately 7 to 8 years. The court dismissed the petition as the deceased passed away two years after dismissal, failing the 'died in harness' requirement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Milan Ganesh Bansode Vs the Project… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 893315.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8933 OF 2015

Milan Ganesh Bansode

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Project Director & Superintending Engineer & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances Mr. Yashdeep Deshmukh i/by Mr. Pranil Sonawane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A.I. Patel AGP for the State

¶11

CORAM : D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶12

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶13

DATE : MARCH 2, 2016.

¶14

ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶16

AGP for the State.

¶17

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition being

¶18

aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2015 passed by the

¶19

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application

¶20

No. 237 of 2012 by which the petitioner was seeking

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 6

¶22

wp 893315.doc

¶23

quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal of her husband from service and consequential reliefs including giving her compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband. By the said order, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶24

The brief facts of this case are as under:-

¶25

(a) In 1983, Shri. Ganesh Bansode, the husband of

¶26

the petitioner joined his duty as a peon in the office of respondent No. 2 - The Executive Enginner, Salt Pan Search and Survey Division. It is the case of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner was habitual defaulter in the the matter of attending duties and would frequently proceed on unauthorized leave. In fact, from the time that he joined

¶27

duties in the year 1983 and till the time that he came to be dismissed on 23.10.2008, the husband of the petitioner was absent from duty for a total period of about 7 to 8 years. In

¶28

view of the frequent absenteeism and long period of absenteeism, a decision was taken to initiate departmental

¶29

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 6

¶30

wp 893315.doc

¶31

enquiry against him. Due notice thereof was given to the husband of the petitioner on 26.4.2006.

¶32

(b) The first charge was that he was absent from duty

¶33

from 2.5.2003 till 26.4.2006. The second charge was also

¶34

with regard to the same infraction. A detailed charge of the absence from duty was annexed to the charge sheet. Despite notice, the husband of the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, thereafter, by office order dated 23.10.2008, the petitioner's husband came to be dismissed from service on account of actionable absence from work. In the office order, it was stated that the employee had taken up private employment elsewhere which is clear from the Police Report. The petitioner's husband expired on 13.10.2010.

¶35

¶36

compassionate ground because of the hardship that she was

¶37

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶38

3 of 6

¶39

wp 893315.doc

¶40

facing post demise of her husband. Thus, the petitioner was seeking the relief inter alia of being appointed on compassionate ground.

¶41

It is well settled that one of the requirements for

¶42

appointment on compassionate ground is that the deceased died in harness. Such was not the state of affairs in the present case. The husband of the petitioner was dismissed on 23.10.2008 and he expired two years later i.e 13.10.2010.

¶43

Thus, it is not as if the deceased passed away soon after the order of dismissal was made but he survived for two years after the order of dismissal.

¶44

It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on her husband of dismissal of service was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. We have already noted above that the deceased was absent from duty for almost 7 to 8 years. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the

¶45

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 6

¶46

wp 893315.doc

¶47

petitioner was absent from duty as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. It is well known that Tuberculosis is a curable disease and the husband of the petitioner could not have been suffering from the same for years together. In any event, the medical certificate dated 5.4.2005 shows that the husband of the petitioner was not suffering from Tuberculosis and even if he was earlier suffering from Tuberculosis, by 5.4.2005, he was free from the disease of Tuberculosis. Thus, we find no substance in this contention.

¶48

In the first place, legally this is not a case where the petitioner could be permitted to question the validity of the departmental enquiry that was completed and finalized with the ultimate punishment of dismissal from service which order was passed two years before the demise of her husband. Looking to the gross absenteeism of almost 7 to 8 years on the part of the husband of the petitioner is such that he himself would not have been entitled to any relief. In

¶49

such case, we fail to understand how the petitioner could be

¶50

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶51

5 of 6

¶52

wp 893315.doc

¶53

granted any relief. The Tribunal has taken all these facts into consideration and thereafter, dismissed the O.A. In view

¶54

of the facts discussed, we find no manifest illegality in the impugned order, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.

¶55

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

¶56

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶57

6 of 6

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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

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