Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. S Prabhakar

Bombay HC23 Jun 2017RA/39/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bench at Aurangabad) disposed of a Review Application filed by the State of Maharashtra. The court corrected a clerical/factual error in a previous order regarding the date a charge-sheet was served on the respondent, noting the correct date was in 1990, not 2003 as previously stated. The application was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

The observations in Para-3 of the previous order regarding the date of service of the charge-sheet were reviewed and set aside.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ra39.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.39 OF 2017
IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10917 OF 2015

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,
Through: The Secretary,
Water Resource Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
and others.

¶8

...APPLICANTS

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

Shri S. Prabhakar,
Age-61 years,
Occu:Retired Sectional Engineer,
R/o-House No. 1-18-88,
Sundar Nagar, Near Karba Nagar,
Purna Ring Road, Nanded, Dist-Nanded,
At present Plot No.4, Saidharni Nagar,
Phase II, Post Nagaram Mandal, Keesara,
Gangareddy, Dist-Hyderabad-500 083.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

 ...
 Mr.R.V. Dasalkar, A.G.P. for Applicants.
 Mr.S.D. Joshi Advocate for Respondent.

¶13

...

¶14

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

¶15

 DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2017

¶16

ra39.17

¶17

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1.This is an Application for review of the
order dated 29th March, 2016 passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.10917 of 2015 (CORAM: S.S.
SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.)

¶20

2.Learned A.G.P. appearing for the Review

¶21

Applicant invites our attention to Ground No.1 and
submits that the charge-sheet was served upon the
Respondent on 5th November, 1990, and pursuant to

¶22

serviceofthecharge-sheet,Respondent
participated in the enquiry and filed his
response. Therefore, he submits that the

¶23

observations in Para-3 of the order under review
that charge-sheet was served upon the Respondent

¶24

in the year 2003 i.e. after retirement of the
Respondent, are contrary to the factual position.

¶25

Though as many as nine grounds are taken in the

¶26

Review Application, during the course of
arguments, the learned A.G.P. restricted the scope

¶27

of this Review Application to Ground No.1 only and

¶28

ra39.17

¶29

¶30

in particular factual error occurred in observing

¶31

in Para-3 of the order under review that charge-
sheet was served upon the Respondent in the year
2003.

¶32

3.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

Respondent submitted that, it is true that charge-
sheet was served upon the Respondent on 5th
November, 1990, and pursuant to it the Respondent
did participate in the enquiry. However, he
submits that the Writ Petition was heard on merits
as well and this Court in Para-4 of the order

¶34

under review, adverted to the reasons/
observationsmadebytheMaharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Paras-13 to 15 of the
Judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that the Review
Application may be rejected.

¶35

4.It is true that while deciding the Writ
Petition, in Para-3 of the order it is mentioned
that charge-sheet was served upon Respondent in

¶36

ra39.17

¶37

¶38

the year 2003. However, on admitted position
charge-sheet was served upon the Respondent on 5th
November, 1990. In that view of the matter, the
observations made in Para-3 of the order under
review stands reviewed and set aside to the above
extent. So far other part of the order under

¶39

review is concerned, the same is maintained.

¶40

5.Consequently,withtheabove

¶41

observations, the Review Application stands partly
allowed and disposed of.

¶42

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶43

asb/JUN17

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. S Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. S Prabhakar

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak Lahu Vyadande and Others

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kumar Shivajirao Shirshikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others