MANOHAR VAMAN RAIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the employment of respondent no. 2 Corporation i. e. the State Warehousing Corporation, pune, in 1966. While he was working as Assistant Storage Superintendent (Class II) he was placed under suspension by order dated 8. 2. 1990. He was served with the charge-sheet on 19. 6. 1990 levelling in all 5 charges against him. He submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and therefore, alongwith three other officers namely : S/shri S. A. Wakchaure (Store-keeper), N. M. Bhalerao (Storekeeper) and B. R. Sonwane (Store-keeper), he was proceeded against and a departmental inquiry was ordered into the charges levelled against him. He alongwith other delinquent employees participated in the said inquiry and finally the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11. 9. 1992. He was issued a show- cause notice on 6. 4. 1993 and alongwith the same, a copy of the report of enquiry Officer was also forwarded to the petitioner. He replied to the second show-cause notice on 15. 5. 1993 and finally the order of dismissal was passed by respondent no. 2 on 20. 8. 1994.

(2.) HE approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3026 of 1994 and challenged the inquiry proceedings as well as the order of dismissal dated 20. 8. 1994. The said petition was rejected by order dated 24. 6. 1998 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 99 of the Maharashtra State Warehousing corporation (Staff Services) Regulations (for short, Service Regulations ). The petitioner submitted such an appeal to the Board of respondent no. 2 Corporation and he was also heard by the said appellate authority. By resolution dated 31. 8. 1998 the Board allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service but without backwages. The period of suspension from 8. 2. 1990 till 20. 8. 1994 was directed to be treated as suspension period. This resolution was communicated to the petitioner by respondent no. 2 on 19. 10. 1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service but without the benefit of backwages. On reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired from service on 31. 8. 2000. The decision of the appellate authority in its resolution dated 31. 8. 1998 and as communicated to him vide order dated 9. 10. 1998 has been assailed in this petition. The substantial reliefs prayed for in this petition are as under :

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine the reliefs on. their merits, it must be noted that there is no period of leave or absence mentioned in this petition which is sought to be converted as leave of any kind due and admissible to the petitioner.