Allowed

Mukul Shaligram Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC12 Jan 2023WP/3656/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, set aside multiple Administrative Tribunal orders that extended time for completing a departmental enquiry. Holding that the enquiry was concluded beyond reasonable limits mandated by the Supreme Court in Premnath Bali, the Court directed the State to immediately release all retirement benefits. It quashed orders granting time extensions to the

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 15.09.2021, 20.05.2021, 16.06.2021, and 19.07.2021 passed by the Administrative Tribunal were quashed. Respondents directed to release all retirement benefits to the petitioner forthwith.

Mukul Shaligram Gajbhiye Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/9

¶2

23-wp 3656-21-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3656 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER :- Mukul Shaligram Gajbhiye, aged 59 years, Occ.Retired Govt. Servant, R/o. 171, Nazul Layout, Bezon Baugh, Nagpur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- (1)State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Water supply and sanitation, 7^th Floor Gokuldas Tejpal Hospital Building Complex, Crawford Market, new Mantralaya Building, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai-01. (2)Regional Departmental Enquiry Offcer, Nashik Division, Central Administrative Building, Nashik Road, Nashik-01.

¶6

Mr. S.V.Purohit, counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for respondents . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SANDEEP K.SHINDE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 21.12.2022.

¶7

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2023.

Kavita

2/9

23-wp 3656-21-

J U D G M E N T ( Per : Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J. )

¶12

(1) Heard Mr. S.V. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally by consent of the learned counsels for the rival parties.

¶13

(2) The petitioner, by the instant petition, is challenging the fnal order dated 15.09.2021, passed by the learned Vice Chairman, Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Misc. Civil Application No.19 of 2021 in Original Application No.122 of 2021.

¶14

(3) The petitioner had fled an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the respondents praying for holding and declaring the action of the respondents in not completing the departmental enquiry, who was nearing his superannuation within six months or one year from the date of its initiation,

Kavita

3/9

23-wp 3656-21-

is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the circulars dated 04/04/1995, 07/04/2008 and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Premnath Bali Vs. Registrar High Court of Delhi and anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 101 . The petitioner had also made prayer for quashing and setting aside the departmental enquiry initiated and granting of all other consequential benefts in salary and pension.

¶19

(4) While passing the order, by observing the view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) about Departmental Enquiry, the Vice-Chairman of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 12^th March, 2021 in O.A. No. 122/2021 directed to fnalise the departmental enquiry within 30 days from the receipt of the order and further clarifed, in case, the departmental enquiry is not completed within 30 days from the date of the order, the applicant shall stand exonerated from all the charges and will be entitled for the benefts of service. The said order was not challenged and till fling of this Writ Petition, the order in departmental enquiry was not passed. Therefore, according

Kavita

4/9

23-wp 3656-21-

to the petitioner, the respondents are bound to grant all the benefts to the petitioner.

¶24

(5) The petitioner retired but, has not been paid pension or any retiral benefts, though the departmental enquiry, was not concluded within stipulated period. The respondents fled Misc. Civil Application before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal bearing MCA No.7 of 2021 for extension of time of 60 days for complying the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The said application was allowed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The said 60 days’ time was over in the month of July 2021. Then also, the order was not complied with and the monetary benefts were not given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has fled an application for recalling the order dated 20.05.2021. While passing the order on the said application, though the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has set aside the order dated 20.05.2021, granted further time of 30 days to the respondents to comply with the order. The said period granted by the Maharashtra

Kavita

5/9

23-wp 3656-21-

Administrative Tribunal was also expired. Again on 19.07.2021, the application was moved by the respondents for extension of time and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has extended the time. The petitioner had moved review application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It was disposed of saying that it has become infructuous. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Vice-Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 19^th July, 2021.

¶29

(6) The learned Assistant Government Pleader has fled the reply and opposed the application stating that the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is without jurisdiction as the petitioner is transferred to Nashik and the Enquiry Offcer from the Regional Departmental Enquiry Offce, Nashik had conducted and completed the departmental enquiry. The petitioner would not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal at Nagpur. In the affdavit, respondent No.2 has stated that the enquiry is conducted in the stipulated time and submitted

Kavita

6/9

23-wp 3656-21-

detailed enquiry report on 06^th November, 2020 to the respondent No.1 and has supported the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 19^th July, 2021.

¶34

(7) It appears that, the earlier order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal specifcally granting time of 30 days to pass the order in departmental enquiry was not complied with by the respondent No.1. Specifc observations were made by the Tribunal, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court about the departmental enquiry, that it should be completed by 24^th May, 2018 and granted 30 days’ time from the date of fnal order to the respondents to pass the fnal order in departmental enquiry. It is further observed that if the fnal order is not passed within 30 days, the petitioner shall be exonerated from all the charges as per the charge sheet and will be entitled for all the benefts of service. The respondents failed to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The Misc. Civil Application, which was fled by the respondents, without

Kavita

7/9

23-wp 3656-21-

giving any opportunity to the petitioner, was disposed of by granting 60 days’ time. Moreover, when the petitioner has fled the application, the Tribunal had recalled the said order and though the order was recalled, the learned Tribunal has granted further 30 days’ time. Again the respondents have fled application for extension of time and it was granted. The review application fled by the petitioner was again disposed of as become infructuous without considering the orders passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶39

(8) Keeping the above facts in mind, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has overlooked the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali (supra), which mandates that endeaveour should be made to conclude the departmental enquiry within reasonable time and, as far as possible, it should be concluded within six months. Para-33 of the cited decision, set outs that, in case of unavoidable causes to conclude the enquiry, within six months, the outer limit for concluding such enquiry, would not be more than a year. It could be seen that, period of 60

Kavita

8/9

23-wp 3656-21-

days was granted to the respondent to conclude the departmental enquiry vide order dated 20^th May, 2021 and further it was extended by 30 days. That even after second extension granted vide order dated 19^th July, 2021, the respondents failed to conclude the departmental enquiry. As such, having not concluded the enquiry in terms of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra) and the Circular issued by the State, we are of the view that the frst order dated 12^th March, 2021 passed in O.A. No. 122/2021 stands revived in its letter and spirit. In view thereof, we pass the following order/s :

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

(a) (i)order dated 15^th September, 2021 in M.C.A.

¶46

No.19/2021 in OA No. 122/2011;

¶47

(ii) order dated 20^th May, 2021 in M.C.A. No. 07/2021; (iii)order dated 16^th June, 2021 in M.C.A. No.09/2021; (iv)order dated 19^th July, 2021 in M.C.A. No.09/2021 are quashed and set aside

AND

Kavita

9/9

23-wp 3656-21-