Petitioner sought promotion barred by pending disciplinary enquiry and ACB inquiry. Court directed respondents to decide disciplinary enquiry within eight weeks or consider petitioner for promotion.
Respondents to take final decision on disciplinary enquiry within eight weeks; otherwise consider petitioner for promotion.
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.
(46)-WP-3827-22.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2023.04.10 10:14:37 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.3827 OF 2022
Anil S/o Chandravadan Mistry ..Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
..Respondents
Mr. Joel Carlos, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mrs. Shilpa Redkar, for the Respondent No.2/MCGM.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 3rd APRIL, 2023
P.C.
BGP. 1 o f 2
(46)-WP-3827-22.doc .
disciplinary enquiry is concluded. According to learned counsel for the respondents, disciplinary enquiry is completed and report is received in sealed cover. In the order dated 23rd March, 2023, we had observed that there is no impediment for the respondents to take decision in pursuance to the disciplinary enquiry.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
[ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
2 o f 2
BGP.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the departmental enquiry in form of disciplinary enquiry is pending.
Whether the petitioner should be considered for promotion despite pending discipilnary enquiry and ACB inquiry.
Anil S/o Chandravadan Mistry
The State of Maharashtra
MCGM
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
