Remanded

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2018WP/2313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the Commissioner's appeal against departmental punishment by set aside the order due to lack of explicit findings. It remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to him to re-decide the appeal on merits within three months.

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 2313.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2313 OF 2016

¶4

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni.. Petitioner
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others.. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Bhagwan V. Thombre, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

¶8

Mr. Santosh B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATE: 25th September, 2018

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1.The departmental enquiry was instituted

¶12

against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer
submitted the report holding that partially Charge
Nos. 1 and 2 has been proved. Subsequently they

¶13

imposed punishment of withholding two increments
permanently. The petitioner filed an appeal before

¶14

theAdditionalCommissioner,Divisional

¶15

Commissioner Office, Aurangabad ( hereinafter

¶16

referred to 'Commissioner' ). The Commissioner

¶17

2 wp 2313.16

¶18

dismissed the appeal.

¶19

2. Mr. Thombre , learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner submits that during the period the
petitioner is shown as unauthorisedly absent, the
petitioner was working. The leave has been
sanctioned by the authority, still, the charge is
framed that without sanctioning the leave the
petitioner is absent. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner was not unauthorisedly absent
at any point of time. According to the learned
counsel, the charge of not teaching the
Environment subject is also erroneous. The said
subject was to be taught to Class 10 students. The
petitioner is a primary teacher. According to the
learned counsel, in the appeal, the Commissioner
has not held the petitioner responsible on account
of the non filling of Passbook and the amount. The
petitioner was not authorised to do that. There
was no order in this regard. Even the Commissioner
has not observed anything in that regard.

¶21

3 wp 2313.16

¶22

3. Mr. Pulkundwar, learned counsel for

¶23

respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the
petitionerremainedunathorisedlyabsent,
subsequently got the leave sanctioned, the same is
also the misconduct. The Enquiry Officer indicts
the petitioner of the charge. The disciplinary
authority and the Commissioner has rightly come to
the conclusion.

¶24

4.The Commissioner has nowhere dilated about
the same. The respondent expects petitioner to
teach Class 10 students, though he is appointed as
a primary teacher. With regard to the sanctioned
leave also no plausible explanation is coming
forth on the part of the Commissioner for holding
the petitioner guilty. There is no reason adopted
by the Commissioner to hold that under pressure
the petitioner must have got the leave sanctioned
subsequently. There should be a clear finding in
that regard.

¶25

5. Considering the above, we set aside the order

¶26

4 wp 2313.16

¶27

of the Commissioner and relegate the parties
before the Commissioner. The petitioner may
produce the record before the Commissioner. The
Commissioner shall re-decide the appeal on its own
merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three (3) months
from the date of appearance of the petitioner and
the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner and the Zilla
Parishad shall appear before the Commissioner on
16th October, 2018.

¶28

6. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶31

marathe

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shafiq Shaikh Umar Vs Shaikh Naseer Ahmed Pasha Ansari

Mubarak Kha Yusuf Kha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karmvir Pratishthan, Ram Nagar, Jalna Thr. Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune