SHAMSUNDAR YASHWANT MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 4 dated 28-4-1997, which is confirmed in Departmental Appeal by the First Appellate authority by its order dated 15-6-1999, which is also confirmed by the second appellate authority by its order dated 20-6-2000. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings and was given charge-sheet dated 23-5-1989, wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner gave reply to the charge-sheet and pleaded innocence. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The Disciplinary authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's report and came to a conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary authority therefore, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 24-4-1997. The Disciplinary Authority having differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the conclusion recorded by him, has given reasons for its conclusion in the said notice. The said notice along with the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary authority, was served upon the petitioner. In the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause within four days from the receipt of the notice as to why proposed punishment regarding withholding of increments with cumulative effect, should not be imposed upon him.

(2.) It is pertinent to note that the said show cause notice was issued on 24-4-1997. The petitioner gave reply to the said show cause notice on 28-4-1997, which was sent through proper channel. It is not in dispute that 28-4-1997 was the last date by which the petitioner was required to give reply to the show cause notice. However, the Disciplinary Authority on that very day i.e. 28-4-1997, passed the impugned order of punishment withholding five increments with cumulative effect. The said order of the Disciplinary Authority finds place at Exh.N page 67 of the compilation. It is found by the Disciplinary authority that till the date i.e. 28-4-1997, no reply was received by the disciplinary authority from the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is recorded that it is presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter, since he has not given any reply to the show cause notice. On the above premises, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order, which was also confirmed by the first and second appellate authority.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner gave a reply on 28-4-1997, the disciplinary authority has wrongly recorded that no reply was given by the petitioner and therefore, it was presumed by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28-4-1997, the reply was given by the petitioner and it was even received by the respondents on that very day. The reply given by the petitioner is annexed at Exh.M, which is dated 28-4-1997. The said reply bears an endorsement of Mr. P. M. Nadkarni, UDC, of having received the reply of the petitioner. The said reply was given in the office of the concerned department on the last date. In spite of the same, the disciplinary authority has ignored the same and has said that the petitioner has not given any reply to the show cause notice.