Allowed

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2019WP/7273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No. 7273 of 2019 quashed and set aside an order demoting the petitioner from Administrative Officer to Assistant Livestock Development Officer. The Court accepted the respondent's undertaking to revoke the demotion and withdraw action pending a proper departmental inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21st June, 2019 was quashed; petitioner to resume duty as Administrative Officer; liberty granted to respondent to proceed with action after due process.

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

10 wp 7273.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7273 of 2019

¶4

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam …..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. …..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ashok T. Gade along with Mr. S. R. Karpe, advocates for the petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP for the State. Mr. G. M. Savagave, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 8^th JULY, 2019.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard learned counsel and learned AGP for the State.

¶10

By the impugned order, the petitioner is demoted from the post of “Administrative Officer – (Class II)” to the post of “Assistant Livestock Development Officer- (Class III)”. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is demoted without holding departmental inquiry and, therefore, he has approached this Court.

¶11

Mr. Savagave, learned counsel for respondent No.2, does not dispute the above position. Having taken instructions from the concerned officer, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 makes a statement that the impugned order, under which, the petitioner is demoted from the

¶12

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶13

10 wp 7273.19.doc

¶14

post of “Administrative Officer – (Class II)” to the post of “Assistant Livestock Development Officer- (Class III)” shall be withdrawn/revoked and action, if any, against the petitioner would be taken after following due process of law. The statement is accepted.

¶15

In the light of the above, we quash and set-aside the order dated 21^st June, 2019, while giving liberty to respondent No.2 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Since the impugned order is withdrawn/revoked by respondent No.2, the petitioner shall be allowed to resume his duty on the post of “Administrative Officer – (Class II)” of concerned board.

¶17

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

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

Digambar Kisan Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Arun Kumar Sinharoy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Marotrao Chaudhari Vs State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bipin Kantilal Joshi Vs Shailesh Chandarana and Anr.

Hazi Abdul Mannan Sheikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay Harisishan Chandak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.