LexPANDIT D. AHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PANDIT D. AHER v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA OCTOBER 31, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Service Law: Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982-Rule 27- C Departmental proceeding-Charge of misconduct causing huge monetary loss to Government-Delinquent found guilty-Punishment of forfeiture of entire pension and gratuity and recovery of the loss to Government- Departmental appeal and application before Administrative Tribunal dismissed-Writ Petition on the ground that departmental proceeding was D vitiated on account of non-furnishing of copy of preliminary inquiry report and non-compliance of procedure laid down under the Rules-Dismissal of- ln appeal, held: Jn view of finding of fact that charges of grave misconduct, have been proved and the procedure laid down under the rule has been followed, interference of Supreme Court not called for-Non-supply of document is not material-Documents which are required to be supplied are E only those whereupon reliance is placed by the department. Practice and Procedure-Plea-Raising of-For the first time before Supreme Court-Permissibility-Held: Such plea not permissible. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant~official F on the charge that he had committed serious misconduct causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,85,658/-. Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the misconduct and by show cause notice punishment of forfeiture of the entire pension and gratuity and recovery of the Government losses, was proposed. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of forfeiture of G entire pension and gratuity permanently. Departmental appeal, as well as the application before State Administrative Tribunal was dismissed. Appellant filed Writ Petition on the ground that a copy of preliminary inquiry report had not been furnished to him as a result whereof he was prejudiced in raising a proper defence; and that Disciplinary Authority had H 120 • -.... PANDITD. AHER v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 121 not followed the procedures laid down in the Maharashtra Civil Service A (Pension) Rules, 1982. High Court, rejecting the pleas of the appellant, dismissed the Writ Petition. In appeal to this Court appellant contended that inquiry proceediµg was vitiated as several documents asked for by the appellant had not been supplied, Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. What was necessary for imposition of punishment was to arrive at a finding of misconduct which is of grave nature or misconduct involving negligence on the part of delinquent officer. The chargesheet issued against the appellant fulfils the aforementioned conditions. He was found C guilty of commission of alleged acts of misconduct. Thus, on the basis of the findings arrived at in the departmental inquiry that he was guilty of such misconduct, it was not required to specifically mention therein that the delinquent was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. [125-F-G] 2. The appellant being a Supervisory Head, had a duty to see that the Scheme is implemented in its letter and spirit. Two of the charges framed against him clearly relate to administrative lapses on his part. In the departmental inquiry also, the said charges have been proved. (125-G-H; 126-A) 3. In view of finding of fact that all the procedures laid down under Rule 27 of the Rules have been complied with there is no reason to interfere therewith. [126-B] D E 4. A finding of fact has been arrived at that a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the-appellant. A copy of the document which has not been F relied upon, is not required to be supplied to a delinquent officer. The documents which are required to be supplied are only those whereupon relianc·e has been placed by the Department. (124-E-F] 5. Submission of the appellant to the effect that documents had not been supplied to him does not appear to have been raised by him before the High G Court. As no such contention had been raised, he cannot be permitted to raise it for the first time before this Court. (126-A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil App~al No. 4612 of2006 From the Judgment and final order dated 22-7-2005 of the High Court H ·' 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A of Judicature at Bombay in Wtit Petition No. 4467/2005. Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J :
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.