SUJIT Vs. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 21/7/2020 passed by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short "NIT") by which the services of the petitioner as a Junior Clerk came to be terminated by imposing punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short, "the Rules of 1979"). Inter alia, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in breach of the provisions of the Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1979 a copy of the Enquiry Report was served on the petitioner along with the order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. It is urged that it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to have first served a copy of the Enquiry Report on the petitioner to enable him to make a representation/submission within a period of 15 days. Without supplying such copy of the Enquiry Report, the Chairman proceeded to impose a major penalty on the petitioner. Placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench in Writ Petition No.280/2019 (Arun Nagnath Sontakke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.) with connected matter decided on 20/9/2022 at the Principal Seat it is submitted that the aforesaid violation of the mandatory procedure as prescribed has rendered the order imposing penalty unsustainable. He has invited attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the NIT in which this position has not been denied. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to paragraph No.19 of the affidavit in reply filed by the NIT, in which it has been stated that the petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report along with the order of punishment. Breach of Rule 9 has been denied. The learned Counsel has also invited attention to the charges that were framed against the petitioner for holding such departmental enquiry. He submits that considering the gravity of charges, leniency ought not to be shown to the petitioner.