NAYANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASAHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At admission stage, the parties agreed to make their submissions on the petition. Therefore, rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard on merits.

(2.) The petitioner No.l holds a licence, issued by the State Excise Department, for conducting business of liquor shop, at Savda, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The petitioner No.2 is the petitioner No.l's husband and is working in the shop of liquor as a servant. The respondent No.2 was working as Sub-Inspector, State Excise Department, and while doing his duty, on 12th November, 2006, he visited the liquor shop, and he discovered some irregularities in the maintenance of record of the shop. Accordingly, on the very day, he made a report to the Collector against the petitioner No.l. On 14th November, 2006, both the petitioners suo-moto went before the Collector and submitted their explanation in the form of a joint affidavit (henceforth be called the affidavit). They explained, as to what had happened on 12th November, 2006, at their liquor shop. They alleged in the affidavit that the respondent No.2 came to their shop in drunken condition, demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe and threatened action against them. They also alleged in the affidavit that the respondent No.2 habitually came to their shop for demanding free liquor bottles. They said that the respondent No.2 threatened them that he would see that the licence would be canceled.

(3.) Pursuant to the report of the respondent No.2, the Collector issued show-cause-notice to the petitioner No.l. But before the Collector could decide further action, it seems, the department of the respondent No.2 took cognizance of the contents of the affidavit and initiated departmental action against him. On 20th November, 2006, a show-cause-notice of departmental inquiry was issued against the respondent No.2. It seems, during the course of the departmental inquiry, the Superintendent of State Excise Department visited the petitioners' shop and recorded certain statements of the petitioner No.l. In this statement, the petitioner No.l stated that on 12th November, 2006, she was not present in the shop, but her husband was present. During the course of the inquiry initiated against the respondent No.2, the case ultimately reached the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and, it seems, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise exonerated the respondent No.2 of the allegations made against him. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner of Excise sent a letter to the Collector, before whom the inquiry against the petitioners was pending. In this letter, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise stated that the Collector should complete the inquiry and deal with the petitioners strictly. The Collector, thereafter, conducted the inquiry and concluded the same on 20th May, 2008. Though the Collector held that the petitioners had committed irregularities in maintaining the record of the liquor shop, and on account of such irregularities, though he ordered the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, he did not deal with the allegations made by the petitioners in their affidavit against the respondent No.2. He did not record, as to whether the allegations made in the affidavit were false or otherwise.