Disposed

Ramesh Ambadas Kusat v. the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC21 Feb 2024WP/1461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank employee facing departmental enquiry sought documents, a common enquiry with same-cadre officers, and defence by a legal practitioner or retired employee. The court held the document demand premature before the Enquiry Officer's decision, left the common-enquiry issue to management, and allowed the retired-employee request subject to conditions, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations: document supply left to Enquiry Officer; common enquiry left to management; retired-employee defence representative permissible subject to conditions.

Ramesh Ambadas Kusat Vs the Union of India… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:4040-DB

¶2

917-WP-1461-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2024

¶5

Ramesh Ambadas Kusat

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The Union Of India Through
Its Secretary And Others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

…..

¶11

Mr. V. B. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. N. N. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. P. L. Shahane, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4
...

¶12

CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE:FEBRUARY 21, 2024

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.The Petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses B,

¶15

C and D as under:

¶16

B)Issue writ of mandamus, or any other
writ, order or direction like in the nature
of writ of mandamus, directing the
respondents to supply the documents
demanded by the petitioner and copies of
service regulations allowed the petitioner
to submit his defense statement and then
initiate the common departmental enquiry of
the same cadre officers as per clause 42 of
the M.G.B. officers and employees service
regulations and for that purpose issue
necessary orders.

¶17

C)Issue writ of mandamus, or any other
writ, order or direction in the nature of
writ of mandamus, direct the respondents to
allow the petitioner to defend him through

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

917-WP-1461-2024.odt

¶20

legal practitioner or retired employee in
the departmental enquiry and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.

¶21

D)Pending hearing and final disposal of
this writ petition, the departmental
enquiry initiated against the petitioner
may kindly be kept in abeyance and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.

¶22

2.In so far as the list of documents submitted

¶23

by the Petitioner is concerned, it contains 80
documents. This issue is still before the Enquiry
Officer who is yet to pass an order on his application
for seeking a direction to the Bank/Employer to produce
such documents. Therefore, on this count, the Petition
is premature.

¶24

3.In so far as the contention of the Petitioner

¶25

set out in prayer clause ‘B’ that common departmental

¶26

enquiry be conducted with reference to same cadre
officers, we do not wish to deal with the said aspect
since it is for the management to decide.

¶27

4.In so far as the demand for a legal

¶28

practitioner as a defence representative is concerned,
if the management representative is not a legally
trained officer as a graduate in law, unless the rules
prescribe, such directions cannot be given. The request

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

917-WP-1461-2024.odt

¶31

for engaging a retired employee as a defence

¶32

representative in the enquiry, has to be left to the
Management, provided there is no legal impediment. The
Petitioner may suggest such name to the Enquiry Officer
and subject to the reply of the management and provided

¶33

the suggested person is not a person who has already
suffered disciplinary action or punishment, an
appropriate order may be passed by the Enquiry Officer.

¶34

5.As it appears that the bone of contention is

¶35

as regards a long list of documents that are being
sought by the Petitioner, we leave this aspect to the
Enquiry Officer after recording the say of the
management. Needless to state, an order can be passed
by him on such an application in the enquiry.

¶36

6.In view of the above observations, this Writ
Petition is disposed off.

¶37

(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶38

Malani

¶39

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Ambadas Kusat v. the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Ambadas Kusat v. the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

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

Suraj Shesherao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tis Secretary and Another

Eknathrao Ganpatrao Khadse Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Harichandra Sandu Share Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Kanan Treaders Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Keshav Narayan Dake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Sakharam Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its State Minister and Others