SOMESHWAR GANPATI BHAKTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was a Drugs Inspector employed in the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, impugns the Order dated 21st June, 1985, made by the Respondents whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from the employment after a departmental enquiry.

(2.) WE heard this petition on 17th January, 1990 and 18th January, 1990. The Petitioner's Counsel concluded the arguments We suggested to the learned Counsel for the Respondents that having regard to the fact that the Petitioner had not actually benefited from the alleged act of misconduct and what is alleged to be tampering with the documents did not involve any benefit to him or his relative, the Respondents should consider whether they would reinstate the Petitioner if he gives up in writing his claim to back-wages and accepts the position of Drugs inspector with effect from the date of the Government's decision Learned counsel for the Respondents took time to seek instructions Since the respondents have not accepted the recommendation, we now proceed to dispose of the petition on merits.

(3.) THE Petitioner was stationed at Kolhapur in 1978-79. He is alleged to have committed two acts of misconduct :- (i) Misuse of his position to promote the business of his nephew s. V. Bhakta, Proprietor of M/s. Pharma Distributors (India), kolhapur, by recommending him to different dealers in drugs for buying drugs and medicines from M/s. Pharma Distributors (India), Kolhapur ; (ii) The Petitioner's nephew, the Proprietor of M/s. Pharma Distributors (India), kolhapur, addressed two separate letters bearing the same date ; one to the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Kolhapur and the other to the Sales tax Officer, Kolhapur. By these letters, he informed the authorities about the temporary closure of his business. The assistant Commissioner. Food and Drug Administration, kolhapur received the letter addressed to Sales Tax Officer, kolhapur and the Sales Tax Officer, Kolhapur, received the letter addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug administration, Kolhapur. The Petitioner exchanged and replaced the letters The Petitioner noticed that in the inward register, the subject of the letter was recorded as "for cancellation of drug licence". The Petitioner corrected this and recorded the subject as temporary closure of business