Writ petition challenging termination of police service. Court directed State not to disturb petitioners' services due to long tenure and interim order reliance, barring future benefits derived from defective sports certificates.
Respondents directed not to discontinue or disturb the services of the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5969.2006WP
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5969 OF 2006
1.Kantu s/o. Shankar Rathod,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o: Dudhani, Tq.Akkalkot,
Dist: Solapur,
At present working as Police
Constable, Police Station Naldurg,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2.Sanjivan s/o. Nivrutti Jadhavar,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Tadgaon, Tq.Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad
Presently working as Police
Constable at Police Station,
Ambi, Tq.Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms.S.S.Raut, AGP for the Respondent/State
...5969.2006WP
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 14.03.2018
Pronounced on : 20.03.2018
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1]This Petition takes exception to the
impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2006
passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad [for
short ‘MAT’] in Original Application
No.830/1996 with Misc. Application No.61/1999
with Original Application No.831/1996 with
Misc. Application Stamp No.1358/1998, and
the order of termination dated 08.08.1996
issued by respondent no.4.
2]It is the case of the petitioners
that petitioner no.1 belongs to ‘Vimukta
Jati’ [VJ] category, whereas petitioner no.2
belongs to NT-D category. On 08.05.1995, the
respondent authorities, after verifying the
entire documents of the petitioners and after
5969.2006WP
3
following the entire selection process,
selected the petitioners for the post of
Police Constable from sportsmen category.
After selection of the petitioners, they have
undergone training at Police Headquarter for
a period of 6 months, and thereafter at
Police Training Centre, Akola for a period of
9 months. After completion of the training,
the petitioners have joined the posts of
Police Constable at Police Headquarter,
Osmanabad. By common order dated 08.08.1996,
respondent no.4 terminated the services of
the petitioners without assigning any reason.
Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged
the said impugned order of termination before
the MAT at Aurangabad, by filing Original
Application Nos.830/1996 and 831/1996. The
MAT in Misc. Application No.61/1999 and Misc.
Application Stamp No.1358/1998 granted
interim relief on 17.01.2000 in favour of the
petitioners. On the basis of said interim
5969.2006WP
4
order, the respondents have reinstated the
petitioners on the post of Police Constable.
After hearing both the parties, the MAT was
pleased to dismiss the Original Applications
filed by the petitioners by order dated
16.08.2006, and vacated the interim relief.
3]Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioners were
appointed on 8th May, 1995, and thereafter
they are continued in the service on the
basis of the interim order passed by the MAT.
He further submits that even during pendency
of this Petition, the petitioners’ services
have been protected, and by this time the petitioners have completed more than 22 years service. Even respondents have granted promotion to the petitioners, and therefore, keeping in view the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Mah & ors. Vs. Arun Digambarrao Kulkarni in Writ Petition No.4204 of 2008, decided on 9th
5969.2006WP
5
August, 2017. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioners’ services deserve to be
protected. It is submitted that the
respondents,withoutconsideringthe
provisions in para 78 [1] of the Bombay
Police Manual, Vol.1, 1959, and in particular
clause (vii) thereof, and without following
the principles of natural justice, terminated
the services of the petitioners. In support
of his contention that, the services, even on
temporary basis, cannot be terminated without
following principles of natural justice, he
placed reliance on the exposition of law by
the Division Bench [Coram : V.G.Palshikar and
Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ.] in the case of Dattaraya Kaluram Dedge Vs. Union of India & another1 . He further invites our attention to the various documents, and also interim order passed by the MAT and submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.
12005 [2] Mh.L.J. 295
5969.2006WP
6
4]On the other hand, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent-State and its
Officials, relying upon the findings recorded
by the MAT, submits that the appointments of
the petitioners were from sports category. In
fact, the certificates, which were issued in
favour of the petitioners, were not certified
by the District Sports Officer. He further
submits that though the petitioners have
rendered more than 22 years service, they
have been continued in service because of the
interim order passed by the MAT, and this
Court, therefore, legally they are not
entitled to be continued in service. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindaswamy and others2 . Therefore, learned AGP submits that the
Petition may be dismissed.
2[2014] 4 SCC 769
5969.2006WP
7
5]We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and learned AGP appearing for the
respondent-State. With their able assistance,
we have perused the pleadings in the
Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures
thereto, and the documents, which have been
placed on record. We have carefully perused
the impugned judgment and order passed by the
MAT, and also other documents placed on
record. It appears that, when the petitioners
applied for the post of Police Constable from
the sports category, they were supposed to
file certificate showing their participation
in the sports event, and such certificate
duly signed / verified by the District Sports
Officer. Admittedly, in the present case, the
said certificates were not certified by the
District Sports Officer. It further appears
that the sport events in which the
petitioners did participate were not
5969.2006WP
8
organized by the office of the District
Sports Officer. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the findings recorded by the MAT
are in consonance with the documents/material
brought on record.
6]However, it appears that the MAT
while passing the interim order on 17th
January, 2000, has commented about the
genuineness of the certificates, which were
produced by the petitioners. Para 4 of the
interim order dated 17th January, 2000, passed
by the MAT, reads thus:
4. I have gone through these merit certificates filed by the respective petitioners and there is every reason to believe that they are genuine. Both these petitioners are taken active part in the sports conducted by the various organisations. Moreover both these petitioners after selection to the post of Police Constable had also
5969.2006WP
9
undergone the training for which at least the Govt. of Maharashtra has spent not less than Rs.1,00,000/- for the training programme. The discharges of both these petitioners are simplicitor without assigning any reasons and without given any opportunity to hear is certainly bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
7]It is true that said order was the
interim order, nevertheless, the aforesaid
observations are on factual score, inasmuch
as the Member, MAT has made endeavour to find
out the genuineness of the said certificates.
8]We also find considerable force in
the argument of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners that the petitioners have
rendered more than 22 years service, and they
have settled in life, and if they are
dislodged from the services, the same would
5969.2006WP
10
affect upon the families of the petitioners,
and the society will be deprived from their
services, since they have gained more than 22
years experience by rendering satisfactory
services.
9]In the light of discussion herein
above, and in the peculiar facts and
circumstances and keeping in view the
unreported judgment of this Court in the case
of The State of Mah & ors. Vs. Arun Digambarrao Kulkarni [cited supra], we do not
wish to disturb the services of the petitioners. In the case of The State of Mah & ors. Vs. Arun Digambarrao Kulkarni [cited supra], it is observed thus:
.... For almost 18 years, the respondent is in service
pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. It would not be appropriate now, to unsettle the said position after the long slumber of 18 years,
5969.2006WP
11
more particularly when the present petitioner implemented interim order passed by Tribunal, way back in the year 1999.
10]In the light of above, we direct the
respondents not to discontinue / disturb the
services of the petitioners. However, we make
it clear that the petitioners will not be
entitled to get / receive further service
benefits, [however excluding benefits already
granted / received including continuity in
service, and post retiremental benefits as
per the Rules,] on the basis of the sports
certificates [Exhibit-A] in future.
11]Rule is made absolute in above
terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
DDC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the long-continued service of petitioners appointed on sportsmen category must be preserved despite defective certification given their settled life after 22 years.
Whether the High Court should disturb the service status of petitioners maintained pursuant to interim tribunal orders for over a decade.
What future service benefits, if any, are accruable to petitioners whose appointment was based on uncertified sports certificates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Maharashtra vs. Arun Digambarrao KulkarniExplained¶39
The State of Mah & ors. Vs. Arun Digambarrao Kulkarni in Writ Petition No.4204 of 2008
Dattaraya Kaluram Dedge vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶45
Dattaraya Kaluram Dedge Vs. Union of India & another [2005] 2 Mh.L.J. 295 · Who else cites this
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. GovindaswamyRelied on¶54
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindaswamy and others [2014] 4 SCC 769 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kantu Rathod and Sanjivan Jadhavar
State of Maharashtra
Inspector General of Police
Deputy Inspector General of Police
Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad
S.S.Shinde
S.M.Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court