GUNWANT LAXMAN INGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises an interesting and important question as regards the jurisdiction of the learned members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the MAT" for the purpose of brevity) to rehear the matter after the same once having been referred to the third member, for his decision because of the difference of opinion between the two members of the MAT, in accordance with section 26 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present litigation are :--

(3.) IN the intervening period, there appeared to be some assessment of the working of the petitioner which was made by the Review Committee. The Review Committee had come to the conclusion that it was in public interest and also in the interest of administration to prematurely retire the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules. Fact remains on the record that before any action could be taken on the basis of the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, he stood prematurely retired. The abovesaid order of premature retirement happened to be a subject matter of writ petition before the High Court at the instance of the petitioner. However, the petition was dismissed and the Special Leave petition against that also came to be dismissed, thus confirming the decision of the Government as regards retiring the petitioner prematurely.