Rajendra S/O Amrut Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-NAG:7106-DB

¶3

( 1 )

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6260 OF 2024

¶6

Rajendra s/o Amrut Ingle, Age : 52 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o. New Gupte Marg, Jathapeth, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. 444005. .... PETITIONER // VERSUS //

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Express Towers, 4^th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 400 021.

¶9

The Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Express Towers, 4^th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 400 0214.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Amravati, Region, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Maltekadi, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS

¶11

- - - - Mr. Devendra A. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. B. Badar, AGP for State.

¶12

Ms. Meghna Munshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATED : 05/05/2026

¶15

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶18

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel of both the parties. With their consent the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

¶19

The petitioner by this petition is seeking direction to the respondent No.3 the Chief Administrative Officer to grant promotion to the petitioner as per the select list dated 01.09.2023 with deeming effect from the date of order of promotions dated 27.06.2024 and also direction to consider the petitioner for the promotion.

¶20

As per the contention of the petitioner, petitioner being eligible and having requisite qualifications was appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Akola on the post of Junior Engineer on probation for one year on a clear and vacant post at Wani by appointment order 15.03.1995. The Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewage Board [MWSSB] was established as per the MWSSB Act, 1976. In the year 1997, the name was changed to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is working under the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Government of Maharashtra.

¶21

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶22

( 3 )

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that since his appointment, he is working with the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran continuously till date. He is holding the post of Sectional Engineer at the Sub-Divisional Office, Murtizapur, Akola. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran was considering the names of Engineers for promotion and accordingly, a select list was prepared on 01.09.2023. On the basis of the select list dated 01.09.2023, the Administrative Officer on 20.10.2023 forwarded the select list of Junior Engineers/Sectional Engineers eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineers to the Chief Engineers of all the Regions and it was further directed to the Chief Engineers to submit all the documents of the engineers mentioned in the list on or before 31.10.2023. Thus, the name of the petitioner can be seen at serial No.60 along with the list which was forwarded by the Administrative Officer. Thereafter, by office order dated 18.12.2023, the Chief Engineer, Amravati declared the petitioner is suitable to do work as he had completed 50 years of age. The communication dated 18.12.2023 was issued to that effect. On 13.02.2024, the Administrative Officer cum Secretary of the Selection Committee issued a letter to the members of the committee that the committee will sit on 15.02.2024. On 14.02.2024, the Superintending Engineer, MJP, Akola informed the Chief Engineer, Amravati Region that as on 14/02/2024 there is no

¶24

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶25

( 4 )

¶26

departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner. Upon selection of the petitioner and other similarly situated engineers as Sub-Divisional Engineer by the competent selection committee, the Administrative Officer of selection committee communicated to the Chief Engineers of all the regions directing them to get the desired place of working from the selected candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his option and selected for Amravati Region after he gets appointed as the Sub-Divisional Engineer.

¶27

The petitioner came to know from his superior officers orally that a complaint was submitted against him to the Head Office at Mumbai regarding a criminal case pending against him with reference to Crime No.29/2015 dated 13.05.2015. The Petitioner immediately wrote a representation to the Chief Administrative Officer pointing out the correct facts and specifically stated that he had filed an FIR against the President and Secretary of Water Supply Committee, Pimpalkhuta which was working under the National Rural Drinking Water Program. The Petitioner was looking after the technical supervision of the work and as the petitioner noticed misappropriation of around twenty lakhs, he immediately gave a complaint and accordingly, FIR was registered against the President and the Secretary of the Water Supply Committee. The petitioner has also submitted a

¶28

( 5 )

¶29

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶30

copy of the FIR to the Chief Administrator. Thereafter, on 14.03.2024, the Chief Administrative Officer issued a letter to the Chief Engineer, Amravati asking him to submit a report with respect to the complaint received against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, Amravati Region by its letter dated 21.03.2024 informed the Chief Administrative Officer that there is no correspondence with reference to any complaint or offence registered with the police station against the petitioner. It was further clarified that as per the complaint given by the petitioner, FIR was registered against the President and Secretary.

¶31

On 17.05.2024, the Chief Administrative Officer communicated that one Advocate, namely Advocate Kailas Vitthalrao Anmane by his letter dated 17.05.2024 addressed to him submitted that the complaint was registered due to the misunderstanding and he had no objection, if the petitioner is granted for promotion. Thereafter also, he was not considered for the promotion. It is contended by the petitioner that he gave a notarized undertaking dated 22.05.2024 stating that there is no departmental enquiry pending against him and if he found guilty in any criminal case, he will return all the benefits which he has received after promotion. Despite the said undertaking given by the petitioner, he was not considered for the promotion.

¶32

( 6 )

¶33

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶34

He submitted that on the contrary, the other office bearers from his office i.e. Jayant Talegaonkar was considered for the promotion, despite one criminal complaint is pending against him. Thus, it is a discriminatory action on the part of the respondents for not considering him for promotion, and therefore, he approached to this Court.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the criminal complaint against the present petitioner was in respect of moral turpitude. The departmental enquiry is also initiated against him and charge sheet is already been issued to him. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Akola vide letter dated 04.06.2024 sought the information from the concerned Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Channi, Taluka Patur, District Akola and Police Inspector, Police Station, Patur/Balapur that, if any, FIR is registered against Mr. Rajendra Ingle, Branch Engineer, who was working on deputation at Gram Panchayat Sub-Division, Balapur from 01.09.2005 to 29.09.2015, immediately be informed this office in that regard. Accordingly, the concerned Police Station vide its letter dated 10.06.2024 informed that, due to the excess amount of work assessed in Pimplekhuta scheme, Rs.2,06,464/- was withdrawn by the President and Secretary of the committee,

¶36

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶37

( 7 )

¶38

Mr. Rajendra Ingle, then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Balapur, has filed the complaint against the Chairperson of the Committee Mrs. Gayabai Bhagatwan Mahankar and the Secretary of the Committee Mr. Parasram Ganpat Wahokar and after investigation in complaint the crime is registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, it was found that the complainant Mr.R.A. Ingle was involved in the crime, therefore, the concerned Police Station has filed the charge sheet against him in the Court on 03.07.2018 and the case is currently sub judice before this Court. Similarly one crime is registered against present petitioner. Due to registration of crime disciplinary action is initiated. As the disciplinary proceedings is already initiated against the present petitioner and the charges are regarding the sexual harassment, which is offence under the moral turpitude, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for the promotional post as the disciplinary action and criminal proceedings are pending.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer and his name was also included in the seniority list, despite of that he was denied the promotion citing the reason that disciplinary

¶40

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶41

( 8 )

¶42

action and the criminal proceeding pending against him. Whereas, similarly situated employee Mr. Jayant Talegaonkar against whom also the criminal complaint was filed and disciplinary action is pending was considered for the promotion. Thus, the act of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is discriminatory in nature. He has also placed reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017, 30.08.2018 and 01.08.2019 to make out a case that employee against whom the disciplinary action or the criminal prosecution is pending is entitled to temporary promotion subject to the outcome of his actions. He further invited our attention towards the fact that the charge sheet was issued to the present petitioner on 18.11.2024 till today not a single witness is examined and even the Inquiry Officer is also not appointed. Thus, there is no progress in the said disciplinary enquiry. He submitted that the petitioner made representation to the respondents requesting to promote him to the above said post. However, there was no response.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the refusal to promote the petitioner is against the provisions of G.R. dated 15.12.2017 and 30.08.2018. The petitioner is discriminated because other one similarly situated employee is given temporary promotion. He submits that there is no substantial progress in the disciplinary action as well as the

¶44

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶45

( 9 )

¶46

prosecution. He further submitted that the right to be considered for promotion is violated and the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolutions has not been followed by the respondent authorities. He placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1672/2022 [Ashok Madhukar Nand vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] decided on 05.10.2023 and submitted that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the said judgment. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench has considered the Government Resolution (GR) and observed that the petitioner therein against whom the criminal action was initiated as well as the departmental enquiry was also initiated is entitled for the temporary promotion.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner does not have right to promotion but has a limited right to be considered for promotion. She submitted that considering the nature of the offences and the post between the two employees who are already promoted and the petitioner. The employee Jayant Talegaonkar is promoted in a class III post. Whereas, the present petitioner is seeking promotion at a higher post. Moreover, the charges against him are of a moral turpitude and therefore, no interference is called for and hence, petition

¶48

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶49

( 10 )

¶50

deserves to be dismissed. She also invited our attention towards the para No.13 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench at Aurangabad Bench and submitted that in view of para No.13 also procedure requires to be followed and petitioner is not entitled for the promotion.

¶51

We have considered the rival submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. We have also considered the judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted and invited our attention towards the Government GR dated 15.12.2017. The right of the petitioner to be considered for the promotion is regulated by said G.R. dated 15.12.2017. An employee who is facing a disciplinary action or prosecution is subjected to the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolution. Clause 6 contemplates reconsideration by the Committee if the performance of an employee is enclosed in the sealed envelope. If such an employee who is reinstated and against whom the disciplinary action has not begun then he can be held to be eligible for the promotion subject to the parameters. If the disciplinary action culminates into penalty then his claim can be deferred to the next meeting without opening the sealed envelope.

¶52

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶53

( 11 )

¶54

The relevant paras of said resolutions are reproduced

¶55

as under:

¶56

“ 6½ foHkkxh; inksUurh lferhP;k cSBdhP;k fnukadkP;k 6 efg.;kuarj ekgksjcan ikdhVkr Bsoysys izdj.k fu;qDrh izkf/kdkjh ;kauh iqufoZyksfdr djkosiqfufoZyksdukP;kosGh fuyachr vf/kdk&;kl iqu%LFkkihr dsys vlY;kps o R;kapsfo:/n dks.krhgh f'kLrHkaxfo"k;d dk;Zokgh lq: >kysyh ulY;kps vk<Gwu vkY;kl] eksgjcan fyQkQk m?kMwu R;krhy fu’d’kkZuqlkj rks inksUurhl ik= vlY;kl R;kl inksUurh ns.;kr ;koh- rlsp T;k vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kfo:/nph f'kLrHkaxfo"k;d dk;Zokgh laiq"Vkr ;sowu f'k{kk fnyh vlY;kl] v'kk vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kaps lhycan fyQkQs u m?kMrk R;kaph inksUurhlkBhph ik=rk iq<hy fu;fer foHkkxh; inksUurh lferhP;k cSBdhe/;s rikl.;kr ;koh- ”

¶57

“ ९ ½ foHkkxh; inksUurh lferhP;k ewG cSBdhP;k fnukadkiklwu nksu o"kZs >kY;kuarjgh eksgjcan ikdhVkr fu’d’kZ BsoysY;k vf/kdkjh@ deZpk&;kaP;k] f'kLrHkaxfo’k;d @ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh izdj.kh vafre fu.kZ; >kysyk ulY;kl] v'kk izdj.kh fu;qDrh izkf/kdkjh Lofoosdkuqlkj laca/khr vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kyk rnFkZ inksUurh ns.;kckcr tk.khoiwoZd fu.kZ; ?ksbZy- vlk fu.kZ; ?ksrkuk fu;qDrh izkf/kdkjh] [kkyhy eq|s fopkjkr ?ksbZy-

¶58

v½ lacaf/krkafo:/nph f'kLrHkafo"k;d @ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh cjkp dkG izyafcr jkg.;kph 'kD;rk]

¶59

c½ nks"kkjksikaps xkaHkh;Z]

¶60

d½ |ko;kph inksUurh tufgrkP;k fo:/n tkbZy dk]

¶61

*M½ f'kLrHkaxfo’k;d @ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh ykac.;kl lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh @ deZpkjh tckcnkj vkgs dk*

¶62

*b½ lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh@ deZpk&;kl rnFkZ inksUurh fnY;kuarj] inksUurhP;k inkoj dke dsY;keqGs] lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kP;k f'kLrHkaxfo’k;d @ U;k;ky;hu dk;ZokghP;k izdj.kkaoj ifj.kke gks.;kph 'kD;rk vkgs dk\ fdaok lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh @ deZpkjh inksUurhP;k inkpk R;klkBh nq:i;ksx dj.;kph 'kD;rk vkgs dk*

¶63

Q½ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh ckcrph l|fLFkrh@vfHk;ksxkckcrps fdrh VIis ikj iMys ;kckcrph ekfgrh d:u ?;koh-

¶64

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶65

( 12 )

¶66

x½ lsokfuoRrhl 1 o’kZ f'kYyd vlsy rj inksUurh u ns.;kP;k vuq’kaxkus lsokfuoRrhpk dkyko/kh fopkjkr ?ks.ks ¼rnFkZ inksUurh fnY;kl ojh"B osruJs.kh izkIr >kkY;keqGs lsokfuoRrhuarj feG.kkjs lsokfuoRrh osrukpk T;knk ykHk izkIr gks.kkj vlY;keqGs lsokfuo`Rrhl ,d o’kZ f'kYyd vlysY;kauk rnFkZ inksUurh ns.;kr ;sÅ u;s ;kdjhrk gh ckc rikl.ks vko';d vkgs-½ ”

¶67

This aspect was already considered by the Division Bench at Aurangabad and in para 14 it is observed that “the parties are relying upon clause nos. 6 and 9 of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017. The petitioner’s contention is that he was eligible for the promotion along with the similarly situated employees on temporary basis. Whereas, the submission of the respondent is that the petitioner was not found to be eligible in the meeting dated 24.12.2021 and thereafter, in the meeting dated 27.09.2022. Additionally, clause 11 is pressed into service for deferring the decision for two years from the first meeting.”

¶68

It is further observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner is harping upon the ground of parity. It can be seen from the charge sheet which is placed on record by the petitioner that the names of the petitioner as well as the other employee are figuring. The other employee Jayant Talegaonkar was considered for promotion for the post of class III i.e. Senior Clerk, whereas present petitioner was considered for the promotion Sub-Divisional Engineer. The criminal case was also pending against the said Jayant Talegaonkar and departmental

¶69

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶70

( 13 )

¶71

enquiry is also initiated against him, which reveals from the document, which are placed on record. Thus, as far as the criminal record and the departmental enquiry is concerned, they are standing on the same footing.

¶72

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 has not placed anything on record to indicate that the departmental enquiry was progressed after the charge sheet was issued to him on 18.11.2024. She submitted that she was informed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 that now the Inquiry Officer is already appointed to conduct an inquiry against the present petitioner.

¶73

Thus, it is apparent that since 18.11.2024, there is no progress as far as the departmental enquiry is concerned.

¶74

The entire record shows that the petitioner otherwise was considered for the eligibility for the promotion and his name was already included in the select list. But, merely because there was criminal case pending against him and the departmental enquiry was also initiated against him, he was not considered for the promotion. The clause 6 and 13 of the said Government Resolution requires to be considered while considering the claim of the petitioner.

¶75

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶76

( 14 )

¶77

It is a matter of record that the disciplinary action and the prosecution have not been progressed substantially. The respondents/authorities have not adhered to the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion along with similarly placed employees and there has not to be any discrimination on that count. The petitioner has only right to be considered for the promotion and in a strict sense the direction to promote him cannot be issued. Having made out a case of discrimination and illegal deprivation to the promotional post we are of the considered view that there is no point in relegating the petitioner to the Committee to reconsider his claim for promotion. The bar of two years engrafted in clause 9 is a legal impediment to such a type of direction.

¶78

Under these special features of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct that the respondents to grant temporary promotion to the petitioner though under normal circumstances we would not have granted such a relief to an employee. We have already recorded the findings of discrimination and illegal deprivation of promotion in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the issue is already covered in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad. It also apparent that the department failed to consider and to adhere to the

¶79

15.wp.6260.2024.Judgment.odt

¶80

( 15 )

¶81

procedure contemplated by G.R. dated 15.12.2017 and 01.08.2019. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 though submitted that the charge sheet was issued however, admittedly, there was no progress as far as the departmental enquiry is concerned.

¶82

We are not prepared to accept the justification and therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed partly. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

(i) The petition is allowed partly . (ii) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion.

¶85

(iii) The respondent No.3 The Chief Administrative Officer to grant promotion to the petitioner as per the select list dated 01.09.2023 deeming effect from date of order of promotions dated 27.06.2024.

¶86

Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶87

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)

¶88

Sarkate.

¶89

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/05/2026 14:33:48

Rajendra S/O Amrut Ingle v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra S/O Amrut Ingle v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devanand Bharatrao Mahakalkar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak Samiti, Thr. President and Another vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Thr. Its Deputy Registrar, Nagpur

Viraj S/O Suhas Patil vs State of Maha Thr Director General of Police, and Others.

Abdul Latif Abdulla / Sanjay Bapurao Nikhure ( in Jail) vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Wadner

Pradeep S/O Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra Thr Inspector General of Prisons Yerwada Pune