The State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secreetary Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Vs Shrikant Bhagwantrao Kulkarni — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

The State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secreetary Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Vs Shrikant Bhagwantrao Kulkarni — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the State's prayer to quash and stay the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 in O.A. No.502/2020 was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.502/2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside as prayed by the State. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal could not be termed perverse or erroneous; accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Unless a departmental enquiry is commenced, at least by issuance of a charge-sheet and show cause notice prior to the retirement of an employee, it cannot be conducted after retirement, save and except if the Rules prescribe otherwise.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal had balanced the equities by allowing the Original Application subject to an undertaking/bond, directing release of gratuity and admissible retiral benefits, while keeping it open to the respondents to conduct such departmental enquiry as is permissible under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Per Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & R.M. Joshi, JJ.), 26 February 2024, Writ Petition No. 2112 of 2024 (neutral citation 2024:BHC-AUG:4320-DB): The State of Maharashtra challenged the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 in O.A. No.502/2020 whereby the original applicant (superannuated on 30.09.2019), whose pension had been stopped on the plea of a merely contemplated departmental enquiry without any charge levelled or finding recorded, was held entitled to release of gratuity and other admissible retiral benefits upon furnishing an undertaking/bond, with liberty to the respondents to conduct such departmental enquiry as may be permissible under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. HELD: it is well settled that unless a departmental enquiry is commenced, at least by issuance of a charge-sheet and show cause notice prior to retirement, it cannot be conducted after retirement save as the Rules prescribe; the Tribunal had balanced the equities and its judgment was neither perverse nor erroneous. Writ petition dismissed.

2024:BHC-AUG:4320-DB

1 19wp2112o24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

19 WRIT PETITION NO. 2112 OF 2024

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECREETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION AND DRUGS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF

VERSUS

SHRIKANT BHAGWANTRAO KULKARNI

AGP for the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & R.M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE :- 26^th February, 2024

Per Court :-

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner/ State has put

forth prayer clauses C and D as under:-

“C) To quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad in O.A. No.502/2020 by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction.

D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, stay the effect, operation, implementation and execution of the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad in O.A. No.502/2020.”

We have considered the strenuous submissions of

the learned AGP, who contends that the impugned judgment of

2 19wp2112o24

the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated

09.01.2023 in Original Application No.502/2020, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

We have considered the grounds raised by the Petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. It is undisputed that no departmental enquiry has been conducted against the original Applicant. The stand before the learned Tribunal was that a departmental enquiry is contemplated, in the backdrop of the original Applicant having attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019. Without any charge levelled upon him and without any finding, his pension has been stopped on the spacious plea that if an enquiry is conducted and if the original Applicant is held to be guilty, he would have to suffer the consequences.

It is well settled that unless the departmental enquiry is commenced, at least by issuance of a charge-sheet and show cause notice prior to the retirement of an employee, a departmental enquiry cannot be conducted after the retirement of an employee, save and except, if the Rules prescribe otherwise. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has balanced the equities by directing the original Applicant, while allowing the Original

3

19wp2112o24

Application, as under:-

“[i] Original Application is allowed.

[ii] By obtaining the necessary undertaking/bond from the applicant, respondents are directed to release the amount of gratuity and other admissible retiral benefits to the applicant and forward the pension papers to A.G. Office for grant of regular pension within 6 weeks from the date of this order.

[iii] It shall be open for the respondents to conduct departmental enquiry as may be permissible under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.”

In view of the above, we do not find that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This Writ Petition is, therefore,

dismissed .

kps ( R.M. JOSHI, J. )

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )