SHAMRAO NARAYAN WANKHEDE Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector cum Food inspector in the office of the 1st respondent Municipal Council Saoner with effect from 5/01/1959. He was placed under suspension by the standing Committee of the respondent No. 1 on 17/01/1976 and a charge-sheet containing 10 charges was issued to him. The Standing committee constituted an Enquiry Committee consisting of Shri M. B. Baswar, President of the Municipal Council, Shri Jageshwar Gupta, Vice president of the Municipal Council, Shri Bhalchandra Patil, Shri Murlidhar pure and Shri Sadashio Gaidhane. The petitioner raised objection for inclusion of Shri Jageshwar Gupta and Shri M. B. Baswar in the Enquiry committee on the ground that they were biased against the petitioner but the said objection of the petitioner was not accepted by the Committee. In the course of enquiry one of the members of the Committee Shri Bhalchandra patil entered the witness box and gave evidence against the petitioner. The enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Standing Committee acting upon the report made by the enquiry Committee by order dated 1/02/1977 ordered the petitioner's removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the municipal Council, Saoner which rejected his appeal. The petitioner thereafter proceeded to file an appeal before the respondent No. 2 Regional director of Municipal Administration and Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. This was also rejected on the ground that no second appeal was provided under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 before this Court in Special Civil Application no. 554 of 1979 which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 2/04/1987 holding that the appeal before the Council was not maintainable in as much as removal was by the Standing Committee and it was wrongly entertained. The Bench held that the appeal before the Regional Director was really the first appeal and accordingly quashed the order of the regional Director dated 2/08/1977 and directed him to decide the appeal on merits. During the hearing of appeal before the respondent No. 2, Municipal Council failed to produce the records of the enquiry despite called upon to do so. Respondent No. 2, however, proceeded to hear the appeal and held that enquiry did not violate the principles of natural justice. He further held that since in absence of evidence on record, it was not possible to find whether the petitioner was guilty of charges the case should be remanded to respondent No. 1 for conducting further enquiry in case old record has been lost or destroyed. The petitioner then filed Writ petition No. 1762 of 1987. In pursuance of notice the Municipal Council appeared and the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council made a statement that the lost record of the enquiry had now been traced and the Municipal Council was in a position to produce the same before respondent No. 2. This Court vide order dated 4/09/1987 quashed the order of respondent No. 2 and directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal afresa in accordance with law. The respondent No. 2, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal on 5/10/1987. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2 the petitioner has moved the present writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the order of the standing Committee as also respondent No. 2 and further seeking reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) SHRI Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that enquiry proceedings were vitiated by bias on the part of Shri Baswar and Shri Jogeshwar Gupta who participated in and dominated the proceedings. He contended that the petitioner had instituted criminal cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against shri Jageshwar Gupta and the said Jageshwar Gupta had also filed cases against the petitioner in Civil Court at Saoner as well as in this Court and those cases were pending at the relevant time. In so far as Shri Baswar is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that a criminal case for misappropriation of 40 bags of cement was initiated against Baswar at the instance of the petitioner and in order to wreak vengence on the petitioner, baswar managed to get issued false charge-sheet against the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that the member of the Enquiry Committee Shri Bhalchandra Patil became a witness against the petitioner to prove one of the charges and deposed against the petitioner during the course of enquiry. The Counsel urged that these illegalities committed in conducting the departmental proceedings has left a stamp of infirmity on the decision of the Standing Committee, since affirmed by the Regional director.

(3.) IN the return filed on behalf of the Municipal Council, it was stated that Shri Jageshwar Gupta was not the member of the. Enquiry Committee and Shri Bhalchandra Patil was not examined during the course of the enquiry. Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, fairly conceded that Shri Jageshwar Gupta was the member of the Enquiry committee. He also conceded that Shri Bhalchandra Patil had given evidence in the enquiry proceedings. However, the learned Counsel urged that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner in any manner. He submitted that out of 15 meetings of the Enquiry Committee, Shri. Patil attended only 5 meetings. Shri Patil also did not participate in the meeting of the Standing Committee. Moreover he voted in favour of the petitioner in meeting of the Municipal Council which was convened to consider the petitioner's appeal. In so far as the allegation of bias on the part of the then president Shri Baswar and the then Vice President Shri Jageshwar Gupta, it was contended by the learned Counsel that in the said meeting conducted by the Council to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had made a statement before the House that he had no complaint against both president and the Vice President and he further stated that he should be excused for the mistakes committed by him. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, there is no substance in the allegation that the President and Vice President were biased against the petitioner.