RAMESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner who has been removed from the service, has challenged the order dated 5 9 2000 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Transfer Application No.1439/1992 in Writ Petition No. 82/1991. By the said order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority by which the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal against the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in the year 1978. In 1981 one Balkishan Paliwal made a complaint to the Department regarding illicit relationship of the petitioner with his wife. On the basis of the said complaint, preliminary enquiry was carried out which resulted into service of the charge sheet on the petitioner in September 1986. Thereafter the departmental enquiry was conducted in connection with illicit relationship of the petitioner with the wife of the complainant.. The enquiry was conducted in connection with moral turpitude and alleged illicit relationship of the present petitioner with the wife of the complainant. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner regarding illicit relationship with the wife of the complainant are proved. The Enquiry Officer, however, suggested penalty of bringing the petitioner in the basic pay scale for a period of two years and withholding the increments. Since the Enquiry Officer was not the Disciplinary Authority, he forwarded the report to the Disciplinary Authority. Respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, who was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, agreed with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer regarding misconduct and ultimately passed the order of removal from service against the petitioner by an order dated 27 th February 1987. The aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was challenged by the petitioner by filing departmental appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14.6.1988. Against the said order, the petitioner initially preferred the writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.82/1991. However, the said petition was transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the punishment recorded by the Enquiry Officer, should have given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter before imposing such a harsh punishment of removal from service. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority has neither given show cause notice to the petitioner nor afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the observations made by the Tribunal. The observations read thus: