DEORAO TUKARAM SAWLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 5-1-2007 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 29-9-1995 dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Talathi on 5-11-1958 and was promoted as a Revenue Inspector on 12-11-1959. On 14-12-1975, the petitioner was appointed as a Naib Tahsildar and was then promoted as a Tahsildar by an order dated 9-3-1982. On 11-6-1988 the petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Collector and posted at Nanded. On 27-3-1989 the petitioner received a show cause notice wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner had permitted the allottees of the land to fell the trees in their land at mouja Chikyala though the petitioner was aware that the allottees of the land had not paid the royalty (price of the trees) to the State Government and the trees belonged to the State Government. According to the other charge the contractor had illegally felled 960 trees though permission was granted for felling 422 teak trees and 66 other trees. It was the case of the State Government that in view of the aforestated actions of the petitioner the State Government had suffered huge loss. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and after the enquiry officer held that the petitioner was guilty of one of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 29-9-1995. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by an original application, but the same was dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order dated 5-1-2007.

(3.) Shri Ukey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were not justified in initiating the enquiry when there was a gross and unexplained delay in initiation of the same. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the State had not advanced any cogent reason for the delay in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had duly checked the 7/12 extracts to find the names of the allottees therein and after being satisfied about the fact that the permission ought to have been granted to the allottees to fell the trees, the same was granted after receiving the favourable reports from his subordinates. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the petitioner granting permission to the allottees to fell the trees was passed while working in the official capacity and since the charge levelled against the petitioner is not of misappropriation or misconduct, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service. At the most, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision of the petitioner granting permission to the allottees to fell the trees could be said to be a wrong decision, but when it was not the case of the respondent that there was misappropriation or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was absolutely no evidence to prove the charge that the petitioner granted permission to the allottees to fell the trees in spite of the knowledge of the fact that the trees belonged to the government and the allottees had not paid the royalty for the trees. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer did not refer to any evidence whatsoever to hold that the petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the trees did not belong to the allottees and the allottees had not paid the royalty for the trees. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged act was committed in the year 1982, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 and the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1995, just two months prior to his superannuation and this shows that the delay in initiating the enquiry has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 1990 MhLJ 950 and (1993) 24 Administrative Tribunal Cases Page 74 to substantiate his submission that no disciplinary action would lie even if a palpably erroneous decision is taken while performing the official duty and there is no charge of improper or corrupt motive against the employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the aforesaid decisions, submitted that there was nothing in the proved charge to suggest that the act had been done by the petitioner with an ulterior motive of gaining some monetary or other benefits for himself or to others. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions SUBHAS CHANDRA BASU vs. BANK OF BARODA, 1992 1 SLR 38 andSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. BANI SINGH, 1990 AIR(SC) 1308 to canvass that the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee are liable to be quashed when there is an inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay.