STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. EKNATH SHANKAR DUMBARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIA Writ Petition is filed py the state of maharashtra and the Director of Soldier welfare department to challenge the judgment and order dated 4. 10. 2001 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referrred to as 'mat') in Original application No. 775 of. 1995 which was filed by the respondent to the Tribunal. The application was filed by the reapondent to challenge the order of dismissal passed by the Petitioners againat tha respondent and undertheimpugned order, the MATallowedthat application and set aside the order passed by the State government disimissing the employee by its order dated 4. 12. 1995 and directing the petitioners to allow him to voluntaril retire. It is this order which is challenged under the present petition.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the present petition are as follows: the responent hene in was dorn 15. 4. 1939 and passed his 10th Standard examination but could not pass the 11th standard examination which was the ssc examination some time in the year 1961. He failed in the ssc examination in March, 1961 but since those werw the days of national emergency, he joined the army on 16. 9. 1961 in the post of radio operator. After serving the armed forces for adout 11. 1/2 years, he took a discharge on compassionate grounds on 24. 3. 1973. Thereafter,he registered himself with the Soldiers Welfare Board at pune and also local employment exchange for securing a civilian job. Hewas sponsored by employment exchange. He was therafter appointed by the Soldier Welfare Board temporarily initially on 4. 9. 1973 and subsequently confirmed on 29. 11. 1977 in the grade of Junior Clerk some time in the year 1985, an order came to be passed granting him a condonation of break in service whereby his services in the armed forces and the civilian service would be considered together and continuous.

(3.) IT so happened that on 1. 2. 1993, a complaint was lodged by one Ashok Patil to thia Board informingthe board that the respondent had not paasedthe SSC examination and had not produced that certificate. On neceiving this information appropriateenquiry waa sought to be made with the reapondent but he did not come forth with clear anawer. The Petitioners also made enquiry at their end and ultimately decided to chargeseet him. A chargesheet was issued to him on 15. 6. 1993 and the charge levelled againat him waa not to remain preaent and to produce the papera showing that he had passedthe SSC examination. Annexure 1contained this charge and Annexure 2 containedthe deacription thereon. The descrition stated that the respondent had made certain eraaiona in the seryice book where entries had been made with reapect to educational qualificationa and thereafter when an enquiry waa aought to be made he did not remain preaent nor did he produce the certificate of his educational qualifications. It ia material to note that when this inveatigation started basad on the complaint of Mr. patil dated 1,2. 1993 and when the respondent came to know about the same,he opted to retire voluntarily and made a necessary application on 14. 5. 1993. It is one of the aubmiasiona made on his behalf that he had applied for voluntary retirement prior to the issuance of the chargesheet dated 15. 6. 1993. It ia however, material to notethat the notice prior to the chargesheet calling upon him to give anexplanatition has beenissued to him prior thereto