SANJAY VITTHALRAO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short APMC) Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. The petitioners assail the order passed by the respondent No. 3 superseding the Board of Directors and appointing administrator over the APMC.

(2.) Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that ten charges were levelled against the Directors of the APMC. Explanation was given to each and every charge. The decision taken and the expenses made are well within the domain of the Board of Directors. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the petitioners in discharge of their functions under the statute. The learned counsel submits that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. No proper opportunity was given to the petitioners. The petitioners were never issued with the notices of enquiry. The enquiry report was also not given to the petitioners. On the ground of non adherence to the principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel further contends that after the enquiry officer was appointed, he submitted the report on 06.10.2018. As the petitioners were not indicted in the said report, he was again directed to give a fresh report and in the fresh report dated 17.10.2018 the petitioners are indicted. After the first report dated 06.10.2018 and prior to the submission of the report dated 17.10.2018 no opportunity was given to the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the respondent / authority before passing the order did not consider the explanation given by the petitioners to each and every charge. The learned counsel submits that all the charges are based on assumptions. The provisions were quoted enabling the petitioners to make the expenses. The decision was taken for the benefit of the APMC and the employees.