Writ Petition No. 2395 of 2015. Case: Ashok Govindrao Sardar Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Amravati Camp and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2395 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Y.P. Kaslikar, Advocate and For Respondents: J.B. Kasat, Advocate |
| Judges | A. S. Chandurkar, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226, 227; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 294, 506, 509 |
| Judgement Date | January 29, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
-
By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati takes exception to the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed and the order dismissing the petitioner from service has been upheld.
-
The facts relevant are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Water Supply employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta on 3-10-1986. According to the petitioner, services rendered by him were satisfactory and without any complaints. On 12-12-2012, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish explanation with regard to an allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14-12-2012 denying the allegation as made. The petitioner was then informed by the Village Development Officer that a further decision in the matter of permitting the petitioner to rejoin duties would be taken in the monthly meeting of the Gram Panchayat. On 4-3-2013, the petitioner was informed that an offence has been registered against him under Sections 294, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and he was, therefore, asked to show cause in that regard. The petitioner submitted his reply to aforesaid notice on 9-3-2013 and denied the allegation as made. On 25-3-2013, resolution No. 9 came to be passed by the Gram Panchayat resolving to dismiss the petitioner from services. On the same day an order of termination came to be passed on the ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. In said order it was also stated that an offence had been registered against the petitioner and that the petitioner was also indulging in political activities.
-
The petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid order of dismissal filed an appeal before the Block Development Officer under provisions of Section 61 of the said Act. The Block Development Officer after hearing the concerned parties passed an order on 18-7-2013 and held that in so far as the registration of offence against the petitioner was concerned, further action was being taken by the Police Authorities. In so far as the other charges were concerned, it was observed that no explanation in that regard was sought from the petitioner. Hence, the order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service.
The Gram Panchayat being aggrieved by aforesaid order filed a revision application under Section 61(1) of the said Act. The Chief Executive Officer after hearing the concerned parties held that there were various complaints received concerning discharge of duties by the petitioner. Similarly, serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner for which a criminal complaint was pending. It was, therefore, held that it would not be proper to reinstate the petitioner and on that count the revision application filed by the Gram Panchayat came to be allowed. As a result, the order of dismissal came into force. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
-
Shri Y.P. Kaslikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Gram Panchayat dismissing the petitioner from service was contrary to law. He submitted that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he was asked to show cause as regards the allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. With regard to said incident, a police complaint had been filed. There was, however, no notice given with regard to the allegation regarding unsatisfactory discharge of duties on the basis of which respondent No. 1 upheld the order of dismissal. According to him, merely because a criminal complaint had been filed, same would not be a ground to dismiss the petitioner from service especially when there was no order of conviction passed in said proceedings. Reference was made to the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Servants (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1960 (for short, the said Rules) and it was submitted that under Rule 3 (c) of the said Rules, conviction by a criminal Court was a disqualification for a person seeking employment as servant of the Gram Panchayat. He further submitted that the fact that the petitioner had discharged his duties...
To continue reading
Request your trial