Bhagwan Hari Kamble and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Present petition takes exception to order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Divisional Commissioner thereby confirming order dated 04.02.2006 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, whereby two increments of petitioner were permanently withheld by way of punishment under provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (‘Rules of 1964’ for short).

¶13

The petitioner is employed under establishment of Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was served with show cause notice as to misconduct. The departmental inquiry was conducted and after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, order was passed under Rule 3 of Maharashtra District Council District Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967. Thereby, two annual increments have been permanently withheld. Although order was passed by Chief Executive Officer on

¶14

18-wp-3452-2026.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

04.02.2006, petitioner filed appeal before Divisional Commissioner on 19.08.2023 along with application for condonation of delay of more than 7 years. On 17.10.2015 learned Divisional Commissioner rejected appeal on the ground of delay. The petitioner filed present petition on 15.02.2026 assailing order of Divisional Commissioner.

¶17

Learned advocate appearing for petitioner relying upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.4134 of 2022 decided on 18.05.2022 submits that petitioner is suffering loss of salary every month. Therefore, delay caused in filing appeal ought to have been condoned by Divisional Commissioner and even delay in approaching this Court needs to be ignored.

¶18

Having considered submissions advanced, this Court finds that petitioner was subjected to departmental action after giving show cause notice and ultimately, order of withholding two increments was passed by Chief Executive Officer on 04.02.2006. The order of Chief Executive Officer/Competent Authority is appealable under Rule 14 of Rules of 1964. The limitation for filing appeal is prescribed under Rules. The petitioner filed appeal after 7 years and 2 months. He could not explain exponential delay in filing appeal. Resultantly, learned Divisional Commissioner rejected appeal on point of delay.

¶19

18-wp-3452-2026.odt

¶20

(3)

¶21

Apparently present petition is filed after 10 years, raising challenge to order of appellate authority. There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate delay of 10 years in approaching this Court. The perusal of order passed by Divisional Commissioner suggest that petitioner could not render explanation of delay of 7 years.

¶22

At this stage reference can be given to observation of Supreme Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 which reads thus :-

¶23

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the list.”

¶24

So far as reliance of petitioners on the law laid down by

¶25

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rushibhai (supra), the exposition of

¶26

18-wp-3452-2026.odt (4)

¶27

law therein cannot be applied in facts of present case. In that case, appellants were denied their entitlement to receive salary of promotional post as available under Rules. Accordingly, Supreme Court found that there was recurring cause of action in favour of appellants. Therefore, although they approached after 7 years, writ petition has been entertained. In present case, the petitioner is imposed punishment by disciplinary authority in year 2006. The order of punishment was not challenged after more than 7 years before Appellate Authority and order of Appellate Authority is challenged after 10 years by filing present writ petition. No plausible explanation is given for exponential delay. As such, petitioner cannot derive any benefit from law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rushibhai (supra).

¶28

In result, writ petition sans merit. Hence, dismissed.

¶29

Mujaheed//

Bhagwan Hari Kamble and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Hari Kamble and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadev Pratap Khedkar vs the State of Maharashra and Another

Anil Fakkadrao Toradmal vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh Sakharam Jaybhay and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Osmankhan Alikhan Pathan Died Thr Lrs Hayatbee Osman Pathan Died and Others vs Pathan Balekhan Pathan Died Thr Lrs Nabikhan Pathankha Pathan and Others

Sachin Santosh Chavan and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Shital Krushi Seva Kendra Prop Prakash Vithalrao Apet and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others