MURLIDHAR SITARAM RANE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Murlidhar Sitaram Rane, has filed this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari directing that the order bearing No. DPE 1281/119/484-CR-1361 E-4 dated 10-2-1987 annexed as Exhibit 'L' to the petition be set aside. The petitioner has further prayed that the Respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits including back wages.

(2.) The petitioner was employed in the establishment of the Deputy Director of Land Record and was posted as a Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Office No. VI, Jogeshwari, Bombay. Sometime in June 1978, the petitioner was found to have committed certain irregularities in furnishing of city survey plans. On 7-9-1981, the petitioner was suspended. However, in the very next month, the said order of suspension was revoked by the Respondent by order dated 15-10-1981. Subsequently, by another order dated 21-10-1981, the petitioner was reinstated in office. On 27-5-1982, the petitioner was served with another order of suspension. Subsequently, an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on 24-2-1984. This enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed for this purpose and was concluded on 28-10-1985. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings that the petitioner against whom the departmental enquiry was conducted alongwith other three co-delinquents was guilty of the charges framed against him, and the Enquiry Officer recommended that the petitioner be dismissed from Government service. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were dated 28-10-1985. Subsequently by an order dated 10-2-1987, passed by the Government, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition impugning the said order of dismissal as also the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the five charges levelled against him.

(3.) Shri Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made various submission which I shall deal with hereunder. Shri Kochar, firstly, submitted that a second enquiry could not have been instituted against the petitioner in view of the fact that he had been exonerated of the charges during the first enquiry. Shri Kochar pointed out that the petitioner has been suspended in the first instance by an order dated 7-9-1981. This order, however, was revoked by the Respondents on 15-10-1981. Shri Kochar, therefore, contended that it should be presumed that the Respondents were satisfied that there was no case of any misconduct against the petitioner and that it should be inferred that the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges.