SHANTILAL DNYANU JADHAV Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 917 of 2005 dated 28-2-2007 and the order passed by the said Tribunal in Misc. Petition No. 73 of 2008 in Review Application No. 6 of 2008 dated 3-7-2008. Original Application No. 917 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3-9-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner was in service of the Government of Maharashtra as Assistant Police Inspector. The Commissioner of Police by order dated 3-9-2005 dismissed the petitioner from service for misconduct. The order was made under Article 31 l(2)(b) by dispensing with the departmental enquiry. That order was challenged before the MAT. Apart from the grounds raised on merits in relation to the misconduct and the competence of the Commissioner to make the order of dismissal, it was contended that in the order dated 3-9-2005, the Commissioner has not recorded and disclosed reasons why it is not practicable to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The MAT dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Against that order, Review Application was filed. Because there was delay in filing that review application, a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay was taken out. The application for condonation of delay and the review application was disposed of by the MAT by order dated 3-7-2008. The MAT found that the petitioner has not disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It also held that even on merits, there is no case made out for review of the order. Therefore, in this situation, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he is guilty of misconduct and the order of the dismissal has been made by dispensing with holding of the departmental enquiry. The learned Counsel submits that as required by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, the Commissioner who has made the order has not recorded any reason why it is reasonably not practicable to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel submits, relying on the following judgments of the Supreme Court: