Dismissed

Dinesh Bhagwan Gawale v. the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Bombay HC8 Dec 2022WP/12428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay in filing a complaint against a permanent withholding of increments. The court held that criminal acquittal does not nullify departmental penalties and delay is not condonable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without orders as to costs.

Dinesh Bhagwan Gawale Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 918-WP-12428-2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

918 WRIT PETITION NO.12428 OF 2022

¶4

DINESH BHAGWAN GAWALE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr Gulab B. Rajale

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2022

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

By this petition, petitioner assails order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule rejecting petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint challenging penalty order dated 18.11.2013.

¶11

By order dated 18.11.2013, petitioner is inflicted with penalty of permanent withholding of two increments. It is a case of petitioner that in respect of the same incident, he was also prosecuted in criminal trial, which resulted in his acquittal on 08.09.2021.

¶12

After his acquittal, he approached the Industrial Court challenging the penalty order dated 18.11.2013 and filed application for condoantion of delay of 8 years and 18 days.

¶13

It is settled position of law that outcome of the criminal case has no bearing on the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. The purpose of the two proceedings are entirely different. Therefore, mere

¶14

2 918-WP-12428-2022

¶15

acquittal in the criminal case does not have any effect on the finding of the guilt recorded in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, there was no reason for petitioner to wait for outcome of the criminal case. If he was aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2013, he ought to have adopted necessary remedies immediately thereafter. The decision of criminal case on 08.09.2021 had no bearing on the cause of action of petitioner for challenging the penalty order dated 18.11.2013. The Industrial Court has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay.

¶16

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.

¶17

[ SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶18

mta

Dinesh Bhagwan Gawale v. the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Bhagwan Gawale v. the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

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

Chintaman Hasha Suroshi and Ors. vs Sau. Alka Vijay Malbari and Ors.

Rafique Md. Husain Tinwala vs Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala and 8 Ors.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rahata Dist Ahmednagar Thru Chairman and Another Vs Bhaskar Baburao Dukre

Rekha Anil Salway and Another Vs Pooja Swapnil Salway and Another

Keshav Ambadas Dhopare Vs Balaji Limbaji Kadam and Others

Nikhil Dadasaheb Kakade Vs Shaikh Najambai Iqbal and Another