DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus BHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 10-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
BHALCHANDRA V ASANTRAO KULKARNI 
JULY I 0, 2006 
B 
[ARJJJT PASAYAT AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Departmental Jnquiry--Termination of delinquent-Dispensing with 
C departmental inquiry-Challenged-Tribunal and High Court set aside order 
of termination on the ground that the reasons for dispensing with inquiry were 
given after the impugned order-In appeal, held: Order of termination 
dispensing with the inquiry was rightly made-Reading of the entire order 
makes it clear that reasons were recorded before the impugned order was 
D passed-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311(2). 
E 
F 
The services of the respondent-delinquent was terminated. The order 
of termination was passed dispensing with the inquiry in terms of Article 
311(2) of the Constitution of India, giving reasons for the same. The order 
was challenged in Writ Petition which was later transferred to Tribunal. 
Tribunal set aside the termination order on the ground that the reasons 
for dispensing with the inquiry were given after passing of the impugned 
order which was evident from the change in the title of the termination 
order. In Writ Petition, High Court upheld the order of Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the change in the 
title was inconsequential. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The view expressed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High 
G Court is unsustainable for the simple reason that the alleged change is 
inconsequential. A reading of the entire order makes the position crystal 
clear that the reasons were recorded before the order was passed. 
[364-F-G) 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1251 of2005. 
362 
.. 
DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA"· BHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI [PASAYAT. J.] 363 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.2003 High Court of Judicature A 
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 4125/2002. 
V.N. Raghupathy and Mukesh K. Giri for the Appellants. 
A.K. Sanghi and Sangram V. Sirpukar for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur 
-c 
Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, thereby upholding 
the order passed by the Maharashtr~ Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, c 
Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). 
The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 
The respondent was working as a Peon in the establishment of Director, 
Town Planning, Akola. An order of tennination was passed taking note of D 
several acts of mis-conduct by the respondent. The order of termination was 
passed dispensing with inquiry in terms of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution 
of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). In the order dated 7 .5.1986 fifteen 
charges of misconduct were referred to. The Deputy Director of Town 
Planning, Amravati, Division Amravati, passed the order indicating the~ein E 
that the various acts of the respondent clearly demonstrated his unsuitability 
and the reasons as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an 
inquiry as is referred to in clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. 
Therefore, dispensing with the inquiry the concerned authority decided to 
terminate him from service after giving him one month's salary instead of 
F 
one month's notice. It was noted that he was in police custody from 30.4.1986 
to 8.5.1986. All the employees of the office were terrified due to his horrible 
acts and possibility of his resorting to tumult and terrify members of the staff 
after release from police custody cannot be ruled out and suspension would 
not be an effective means to check his unlawful activities. 
Legality of the order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ G 
~) 
petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. After creation 
of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal. 
The only ground taken by respondent before the Tribunal in support of 
the petition was that the reasons for dispensing with departmental inquiry H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A were not recorded prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 7.5.1986 
and, in fact, it had been recorded after the passing of the impugned order. 
The Tribunal accepted this plea referring to the original file which was 
produced and the title o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.