HANUMAN PENDAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dtd. 08/10/2021, this Court had issued notice under Rule 9(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 to Shri Anupkumar M. Kumre, Superintendent of Central Prisons, Nagpur. While issuing notice, the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) was directed to initiate departmental enquiry against Shri Kumre and to submit report of enquiry to this Court within four months from the date of the order.

(2.) On the last occasion i.e. 01/03/2022, when the matter was heard, it was indicated to the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that if the Additional Chief Secretary intends to seek extension of time in submitting the report, he had to file appropriate Application seeking extension of time.

(3.) In spite of the said indication, today one Aniruddha Venkatesh Jewlikar, working as the Deputy Secretary in the office of Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai has filed an affidavit seeking additional period of four months for completion of departmental enquiry. On perusal of the said affidavit, we are not at all satisfied with the reasons/explanation submitted by the Deputy Secretary. From the explanation stated in the affidavit, it is clear that the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) is not serious about compliance of the time bound programme fixed by this Court. The explanation given in the affidavit is usual explanation of bureaucratic process usually submitted in the Application seeking condonation of delay by the State Government. From the said explanation, we are satisfied that there is no sense of urgency on the part of Additional Chief Secretary in the light of time bound programme fixed by this Court. We are surprised to see the affidavit of Shri Aniruddha Jewlikar, Deputy Secretary in the light of the fact that it was the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) who was directed to conduct department enquiry against Shri Kumre. When the Authority is directed to perform certain obligation by his designation, least which is expected from the designated Officer is to file appropriate Application affirmed by him seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry as the present proceedings are not in relation to the usual business of Home Department. The Deputy Secretary in the office of Home Department had no business to file affidavit seeking extension of time. Clause (c) of the order dtd. 08/10/2021 specifically refers to the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) by his post and therefore it is only the Additional Chief Secretary (Jail and Prisons) who should have filed an Application seeking extension of time.