Quashed

Charandas Sambhaji Bobde v. M.S.R.T.C. Thru. Vice Chairman and M.D. and Anor.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2022WP/869/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery order issued by the Respondent Road Transport Corporation imposing a penalty after his retirement. The Court held that no power existed to impose penalties post-retirement and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside; the recovered amount of Rs.55,642/- to be refunded to the Petitioner within four weeks.

Charandas Sambhaji Bobde Vs M.S.R.T.C. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1603wp869.08

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.869 OF 2008

¶5

Charandas s/o Sambhaji Bobde, aged about 58 years, r/o Dhanalaxmi Nagar, Plot No.6, Behind Shradha Nagar, Wadgaon Gram Panchayat, Yavatmal.

¶6

... Petitioner - Versus -

¶7

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Wahatuk Bhawan, Dr. Anand Nayar Marg, Bhayakhala, Mumbai.

¶8

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Regional Manager, Nagpur. ... Respondents

¶9

Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Shri V.H. Kedar, Advocate and Ms. B.V. Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 16 MARCH 2022

1603wp869.08

P.C. :

The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Respondent No.2 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation dated 11 September 2007 recovering an amount of Rs.55,642/from the Petitioner.

¶16

Shri Jagdale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that though charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 22 February 2006, till the date of retirement of the Petitioner on 31 January 2007, no action was taken against the Petitioner and the impugned action was taken on 12 April 2007 after the Petitioner had superannuated from service. The learned Counsel has asserted that Discipline and Appeal Procedure, as adopted by the Respondent Corporation does not permit continuation of enquiry against employee after retirement and imposition of penalty.

¶17

On the last occasion, the petition was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the Respondents to examine the legal position and show us either any judicial pronouncement upholding the right of the Respondent Corporation to impose penalty after retirement or any Rules framed or adopted by the Respondent Corporation and applicable to the Petitioner, which

¶18

3 1603wp869.08

¶19

permit such course of action. However, neither any judicial pronouncement nor any Rule, Regulation or Procedure is placed by the Respondent No.2 to counter the assertion of the Petitioner. We cannot keep on adjourning the matter also considering the small quantum of the amount involved.

¶20

Since the assertion of the Petitioner about lack of power on the part of the Respondent No.2 has gone unanswered, we have no option but to accept this contention and quash and set aside the impugned order.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11 September 2007 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents will refund the amount of Rs.55,642/- to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶23

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

khj

¶25

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:21.03.2022 18:37

Charandas Sambhaji Bobde v. M.S.R.T.C. Thru. Vice Chairman and M.D. and Anor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charandas Sambhaji Bobde v. M.S.R.T.C. Thru. Vice Chairman and M.D. and Anor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naved Ali S/O Abid Ali and Others Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

M/S Aai Tuljabhawani Transport Ahmednagar, Thr. Partner, Gaurav Bhagwan Harba Vs the Central Warehousing Coporation, New Delhi Thr. Managing Director and Others

Mehek Swayam Sahay Mahila Bachat Gat, Thr. Secretary, Premlata Arun Kuril and Another Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy. Dept. of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors.

Afzal Zaheen Khan and Others Vs Nirmal Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Nagpur through Its Authorized Officer and Others

Rachana D/O Bhauraoji Meshram Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kalmeshwar, Nagpur and Others

Manoj S/O. Kisanlal Kariya Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Honble Ministry for State (Revenue), Mumbai and Others