Allowed

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Jul 2017RA/236/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a review application filed by a separated government servant. The court found that previous proceedings failed to consider objections regarding illegal termination due to non-compliance with natural justice and Rule 8 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, ordering the writ petition be restored for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 2nd May, 2016 rejecting the Writ Petition is quashed; the Writ Petition is restored for hearing on objections against termination.

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2016
IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11576 OF 2014

¶4

Sau. Kiran s/o Chaganlal Pawar,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Govt. Service,
R/o Datta Nagar, Wanjola Road,
Opp. Datta Mandir, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Maharashtra State, Raigad Bhavan, 1^st Floor, Rear Wing, C.B.D. Belapur, District Thane

¶8

2. The Commissioner, Women & Child Development Commissionarate, Pune-1, District Pune

¶9

3. The District Women & Child Development Officer (Urban), Bhusawal, Gangaram Plot, Plot No. 3105, B-2/124, Rathod Tower, Behind Municipal High School, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate holding for
Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶11

¶12

ra236-2016

¶13

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

ORDER RESERVED ON :23rd JUNE, 2017
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :18th JULY, 2017

¶15

ORDER (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned A.G.P.

¶17

2.The petitioner has prayed for review of the
judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2016, passed in Writ
Petition No. 11576 of 2014.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had challenged the judgment and
order dated 8th December, 2014, passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”, for short) in
Original Application No. 653 of 2013, wherein the show-
cause notice dated 31st August, 2013 was challenged by
the petitioner. The said Original Application was
rejected and the impugned notice of termination dated
31st August, 2013 was kept intact. During pendency of
the writ petition, the services of the petitioner came

¶19

to be terminated on 23rd January, 2015. Therefore, the
petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the

¶20

¶21

ra236-2016

¶22

order of termination on the ground that it was passed
without holding any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8
of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and

¶23

Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short, “Discipline and Appeal
Rules”). The learned counsel submits that termination

¶24

of the petitioner without holding any enquiry as
contemplated under Rule 8 and without extending any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, would be
totally illegal and unsustainable. The respondents were
directed to maintain status quo as per the order dated
29th January, 2015. However, the respondents terminated
the services of the petitioner even though the order of
status quo was in operation. He submits that the effect
of terminating the services of the petitioner without
following the due procedure as laid down in Rule 8 of
the Discipline and Appeal Rules has not been considered
in the judgment of this Court. The judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court.
However, the termination of the petitioner was not the
subject matter of that judgment. He submits that the
petitioner needs to be given an opportunity to agitate
her grievance against her illegal termination. He
submits that the legality and correctness of the
termination of the petitioner has not been considered by

¶25

ra236-2016

¶26

¶27

this Court in the light of Rule 8 of the Discipline and
Appeal Rules as well as in view of non-observance of
the principles of natural justice, more particularly
when the status quo order passed by this Court was in
force. According to him, this is an error apparent on
the face of the record since the grounds of objections
raised by the petitioner against her termination have
not been considered by this Court. He, therefore, prays
that the judgment and order passed by this Court may be
reviewed by setting them aside and the Writ Petition may
be restored for further hearing.

¶28

4.The learned A.G.P. filed reply on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and resisted the review
application. According to him, the petitioner submitted
false information for seeking the service and when the
said fact was noticed by the Department, a show-cause
notice dated 31st August, 2013 for her termination
was given to her. After considering her reply, she was
terminated from the service. He submits that there is
no justifiable ground to review the judgment and order

¶29

passed by this Court. He, therefore, prays for
rejection of the application.

¶30

ra236-2016

¶31

¶32

5.Perused the judgment passed by this Court on 2nd

¶33

May, 2016. Indeed, the points raised by and on behalf
of the petitioner about the legality and correctness of
termination of her services with reference to non-
compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Discipline
and Appeal Rules as well as the effect of non-observance

¶34

of the principles of natural justice and that of
operation of the status quo order when termination was

¶35

effected, have remained to be considered in the said

¶36

judgment. These are prima facie very valid points which
would have considerable effect on the merits of the
claim of the petitioner. The petitioner needs to be

¶37

given an opportunity to agitate her grievance on these

¶38

points against her termination order. So far as the

¶39

finding of this Court confirming the order passed by the
Tribunal in respect of the validity and legality of the
show-cause notice dated 31st August, 2013 is concerned,

¶40

we do not find any reason to disturb our judgment and

¶41

order sought to be reviewed. However, we are inclined

¶42

to set aside the order passed by us rejecting the Writ
Petition and to restore it for hearing on the objections

¶43

raised by the petitioner against her termination. The
Review Application deserves to be allowed. Hence, we

¶44

¶45

ra236-2016

¶46

pass the following order:

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

(i)The order dated 2nd May, 2016, passed by this
Court, rejecting Writ Petition No. 11576/2014,
is quashed and set aside.

¶49

(ii)Writ Petition No. 11576/2014 is restored for
hearing in respect of the grounds of objection
against termination of the petitioner's
services.

¶50

(iii)The Review Application is accordingly allowed
and disposed of in the above terms.

¶51

(iv)No costs.

¶52

 Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL][S.S. SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶53

npj/ra236-2016

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak Lahu Vyadande and Others

Kumar Shivajirao Shirshikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Seema Hiralal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Taterao Mahadu Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another