LexSHRI ARVIND DATTATRAYA DHANDE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
SHRI ARVIND DATTATRAYA DHANDE
A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
JULY 10, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)
B
Se1Vice Law-Transfer--Appellant an Excise Officer-Conducted raid
on a toddy contractor--Seizure of adulterated toddy containing poisonous
substance which may endanger lives of consumers-Sincere and legal action
taken by appellant-Counter complaint lodged by toddy contractor against the C
appellant-On the basis of contractor's claim action taken against the appel-
la11t-{fltimately appellant came to be transfe1red-Transfer order upheld by
Administrative T1ibunal--Appeal before Supreme Court-Transfer was not in
public interest but was a case of victimisation of an honest officer--The trans-
! er of the appellant was nothing but ma/a fide exercise of the power to
demoralise an honest office1~ Tlte trans[ er order stands quashed.
D
Govemment Office1'"---lJiligent and honest discharge of duties
by-Demoralisation of such an Officer--Judicial deprecation of.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4651of1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.96 of the Maharastra
Administrative Tribunal, Aurangaba<Ji in O.A. No. 925 of 1995.
L.N. Rao and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellant.
D.M. Nargolkar and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
It is most unfortunate that the Government demoralises the officers
who discharge the duties honestly and diligently and brings to book the
persons indulging in black marketing and contrabanding the liquor. This is
one of the eloquent case where such a sorry state of affairs has come to
E
F
G
~·
H
231
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, made on December 6, 1996
in 0.A. No. 925 of 1995 upholding the order of transfer of the appellant.
We directed the learned counsel appearing for the State to produce the
record and the material which is made the basis for transfer of the
B appellant. The sequence to be mentioned hereunder stands testimony to
the facts. The transfer is nothing but ma!a fide and arbitrary action at the
behest of the persons interested to target the honest officers who efficiently
discharge the duties.
On December 26, 1994, the appellant conducted a raid on Mr.
C Rathod at Dharayan Tai, Brando! Amalner Tai, Arnalner. Sample was
taken from the Toddy for analysis on the even date; consequently, offences
were registered on December 29, 1994, on the basis of the Analysis Report
received on August 25, 1995. It revealed that the toddy was adulterated.
Therein, it was clearly stated that it contained Chloral Hydrate, a very
D harmful and poisonous substance which could endanger the lives of the
consumers. The appellant asked for permission of the competent
authorities to prosecute the licensee and also for cancellation of the
licence. By his proceedings of even date, i.e., August 25, 1995, permission
was granted. As a counter-blast to sincere and legal action taken by the
appellant against Mr. Narayana Goud, the toddy contractor, the latter
E lodged his complaint against the appellant on August 30, 1995 and the
Minister for District (designated as Guaradia Minister) repeated the com-
plaint to the Minister for State, Excise on the basis of the contractor's
complaint on September 28, 1995. This is lynching point where the officer
was alleged to be wanting in duty. It would be obvious that that bas1:d upon
F this complaint given by the Guaradia Minister to the Minister for State
Excise, triggered another complaint by one Shewala, President of the
Country Liquor Association on October 7, 1995. Pursuant to the permis-
sion for cancellation of the licence, licence came to be cancelled on
Sep~ember 24, 1996. On the basis of these complaints, the action appears
to have been initiated as per the proceedings dated November 18, 1995.
G Action was taken against the appellant and ultimately he came to be
transferred. It is seen that the officer supposed to review the performance
of the duties of the officers on July 7, 1995, i.e., Deputy Commissioner,
Excise had, reviewed and stated that from March 25 to May 25, 1995 he
collected articles Rs. 34,996.00, Rs. 1,91,853.00 and Rs. 1,80,143.00 in three
H months. In his commendation he has stated that "after conside:ring the
A.O. DHAExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.