Constable petitioner challenged dismissal of appeal and revision against his suspension and punishment of withholding increment. Court held departmental proceedings fair, conclusion reasonable, and punishment not disproportionate, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
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.
34 wp1296-19.docx
TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE
Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2023.02.08 19:55:09 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1296 OF 2019
Dnyandev Ambadas Adhav ….. Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
….. Respondents
Mr.Vikrant Anand Desai h/f Mr.S.M.Kamble for the Petitioner None for the Respondents
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 06, 2023
P.C.
1 The Petitioner is a constable who was suspended and departmental inquiry was initiated against him levelling two charges. Charge no.1 is not proved. Charge no.2 is proved. Inquiry Officer imposed punishment of withholding of one increment for two years with cumulative effect. The Petitioner filed Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner thereafter filed Revision. Revision is also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
2 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that charge no.1 is not proved. According to the learned counsel, the general coaches were not inter connected. It has been held that the
1/3
Mohite
34 wp1296-19.docx
Petitioner was in the coach allotted to him. Some dacoits had attacked other general coach. There was no interconnection between two general coaches. As such, the Petitioner could not have travelled to the other general coach. The learned counsel submits that the Petitioner could not have been held responsible for the attack of the dacoits in the other general coach. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner cannot be held guilty of negligence in the duty. The attack was in the night time. If the Petitioner could have fired, the same would have been risky to the life of the passengers. The evidence has not been properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority. The preliminary inquiry is not also properly held. It was not safe for any person to alight from the train in the dark as there was a deep valley.
3 According to the learned counsel even charge no.2 cannot be said to be proved. The learned counsel in the alternative submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate.
4 It is not the case that opportunity is not given to the Petitioner during the departmental proceedings. The factual aspect of train being affected by the passengers of general coach is not disputed. It has been observed in the inquiry that the Petitioner even did not go
2/3
Mohite
34 wp1296-19.docx
to the door after the train had stopped. The Petitioner was provided with arms and ammunition. The Petitioner could have taken some steps. However, the Petitioner did not take any step. All these facts have been discussed by the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority. Appeal and Revision filed by the Petitioners are dismissed. This court would not sit in Appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority. However, we are only to be concerned with the due adherence to the procedure and proper opportunity be given during the departmental proceedings. Opportunity has been given to the Petitioner. The conclusion arrived at is reasonable and rational one. Punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
3/3
Mohite
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was given due opportunity during departmental proceedings and if the punishment imposed was disproportionate.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the appeal and revision against the disciplinary authority's finding.
Whether the conclusion of the disciplinary authority regarding negligence in apprehending a dacoit attack is reasonable and rational.
Dnyandev Ambadas Adhav
The Union of India and Ors.
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
