ANIL AMRUT ATRE Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been referred to a Full Bench, in view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Anant Sadashiv Chandwandkar v. District Judge and Disciplinary Authority, District Court, Thane and others) 1997 (3) Bom. C. R. 171 : 1997 (3) Mh. L. J. 302, as it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Anant Sadashiv Chandwandkar does not lay down correct law, and the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ram Chander v. Union of India and others) A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1173, has not been properly understood and correctly applied by the Division Bench.

(2.) BEFORE we advert to the question raised in the petition, few relevant facts may be stated:--- "on August 10, 1990, the petitioner was appointed as Peon by the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, respondent No. 1 herein, after following due process of selection. It was the case of the petitioner that he was duly elected as the President of Class-IV Employees Association in the District Court. As the President of the Association, he was required to place grievances of members of the union before the first respondent to take steps for bringing awareness in respect of working conditions of the employees in the department. As averred by the petitioner, it caused inconvenience to respondent No. 1, who, in connivance with other Judicial Officers, attempted to pressurize the petitioner asking him to tender apologies from time to time. It is also his case that certain Judicial Officers developed grudge against him, and even false complaints were filed by them. An enquiry was instituted, and one V. V. Shahapurkar, Vth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on November 29, 1996 making several allegations therein. The petitioner filed his reply on December 7, 1996, and also submitted a list of witnesses whom he wanted to examine in his defence. It is the say of the petitioner that the department examined witnesses in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, but the petitioner was not permitted to examine witnesses in his defence which had caused material prejudice to him. On March 14, 1997, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority-respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report and by asking the petitioner if he wanted to say anything in the matter. The petitioner filed his reply controverting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as also making complaint against not allowing him to examine witnesses in his defence. Finally, on August 6, 1998, the in-charge District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, held the charges levelled against the petitioner proved and imposed penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court, and the Registrar of the High Court, respondent No. 2 herein, communicated to the petitioner vide a communication dated June 25, 1999 that the High Court does not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.