NARAYAN DATTATRA YA RAMTEERTHAKHAR
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 20, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANA VA TI AND
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
Service Law :
A
B
Removal from service-Government servant-Misconduct-
Misappropriation of public money-Inquiry officer finding the employee C
guilty-Disciplinary authority removed him from service-Tribunal upheld
the removal order-Pleas of employee that he was forced to deposit the
money and the preliminary inquiry was not properly conducted-Held not
sustainable-There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal
warranting interference.
O
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 23872 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.95 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 558 of 1991.
E
Jasbir Singh, Malik and Ms. Kamakshi Singh Mehlwal for the
Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
F
The special leave petition arises from the order of Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in OA No. 558 of 1991. G
The finding recorded by all the authorities is that the petitioner has
misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1440 deducted from the employees and had
not deposited until asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the authorities
have concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. On that
finding, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The disciplinary authority
removed him from service. The Petitioner challenged the order in the H
939
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS !1996] SUl'I'. 8 S.C.R.
A High Court. The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ
petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The Tribunal found
that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the
disciplinary action. That apait, even on merits also, we do not think that
there is any case made out for interference. The finding is that the petitioner
has committed misappropriation of the public money and his removal
B from service is an appropriate order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner
has not committed any misappropriation and that he was forced to deposit
the money. We cannot accept the contention in view of the fact that the
petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then contended that the
C preliminary enquiry was not properly conducted and, therefore, the enquiry
is vitiated by principles ofnaturaljustice. We find no force in the contention.
The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find
whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent.
After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its
D importance.
E
Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The special leave petition
is accordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
Lex