Remanded

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached to Assolna Outpost of Cuncolim P. S. v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2020WP/512/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa set aside the revisional authority's order dismissing a police constable from service. The Court held that under Article 311(2)(b), the revisional authority failed to examine the reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry and remanded the matter. The Court did not decide on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19th March, 2013 was set aside; the petition was restored before the revisional authority to consider reasonable practicability.

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 512 OF 2013

¶4

Mr. Kanchan Chodankar,
Constable, Badge No.3818,
Attached to Assolna Outpost
of Cuncolim Police Station,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident of H.No.326,
Tar Wada, Revora,
Bardez Goa. ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.State of Goa through the
Chief Secretary, having office
at Secretariat, Porvorim,
Bardez Goa.

¶7

2.Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez Goa.

¶8

3.Office of Superintendent of Police (North) Porvorim, Bardez Goa.

¶9

4.Director General of Police,
Goa Office of the Director General of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Panaji Goa. ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶11

Coram:- M. S. SONAK &
 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
Date:- 5th March, 2020

¶12

¶13

Oral Judgment ( Per M. S. Sonak, J)

¶14

Heard Mr. S. Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶15

2. The Petitioner challenges the orders dated 18th October,
2007, 25th April, 2008 and 19th March, 2013, in relation to his
dismissal from service as a Police Constable.

¶16

3. The dismissal order is dated 18th October, 2007. The
appeal against the same was dismissed by order dated 25th April,
2008, which the Petitioner has not been able to place on record. The
revision was dismissed by order dated 19th March, 2013, which
order finds place at pages 38-39 of the paper book.

¶17

4. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioner points out
that this is a case where the Petitioner was dismissed from service
without conduct of any inquiry since, the Respondents invoked the
provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. He
submits that in such a situation, at least revisional authority, was
required to examine the matter to determine whether the predicates
of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution were fulfilled. He refers to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and another Vs Tulsiram Patel1 to submit that the revisional

¶18

1(1985) 3 SCC 398

¶19

¶20

authority was duty bound to determine whether the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the authorities which passed the dismissal
order on the aspect of "reasonable practicability" to hold an enquiry
was well founded or not. He submits that the order dated 19th
March, 2013 passed by the revisional authority if perused, it is
apparent that there is no consideration whatsoever of this most vital
and relevant aspect of the matter. He therefore submits that the order
of the revisional authority dated 19th March, 2013 may be set aside
and the matter be remanded to the revisional authority for fresh
consideration of the Petitioner's revision petition.

¶21

5. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate defends the
impugned order on the basis of the reasonings reflected therein. He
attempts to refer us to the material on record to submit that the
subjective satisfaction was properly arrived at by the authority which
made the dismissal order.

¶22

6. According to us, since the Petitioner has been dismissed
from service by invoking provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the
Constitution of India the revisional authority at least, was required to
consider the contention with regard to the reasonable practicability
or otherwise of holding an enquiry in the matter. The parameters for
review of such orders have been laid down in Tulsiram Patel ( supra).
From perusal of the revisional authority's order dated 19th March,

¶23

¶24

2013, it is clear that the revisional authority has not even adverted to
such parameters.

¶25

7. On the aforesaid short ground, we set aside the
impugned order dated 19th March, 2013 made by the revisional
authority and we restore the Petitioner's revision before the revisional
authority. The revisional authority is now directed to hear the
Petitioner and dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as
possible.

¶26

8. We make it clear that we have not adverted to the merits
of the matter and we leave it to the revisional authority to dispose of
the revision petition in accordance with law, by taking into
consideration the various parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra).

¶27

9. Rule in this petition is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

10. All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated
copy of this order.

¶29

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶30

at*

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached to Assolna Outpost of Cuncolim P. S. v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached to Assolna Outpost of Cuncolim P. S. v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Palan and Anr., Vs Yogesh Jagdale.

Xavier Mario Leonardo Jose Almeida., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Dinesh Amonkar., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Alison Britto., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Vice President, Sheik Ismail., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and Anr.

Goa State Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd., Rep. by Its Man. Director, Dr. Anil N. Fadte., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.