LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-105

GAJANAN BABU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 24, 2005
GAJANAN BABU PATIL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner joined services of Respondent No. 1 in the accounts Department as Lower Division clerk. In the year 1977, F. I. R. came to be lodged against the Petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 380, 411 and 120 (b) of I. P. C. The investigation was conducted by A. G. P. and criminal Case was filed in the court of metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, esplanade, Bombay. The Petitioner was suspended by order of 6-1-1977. The petitioner along with another amongst the five accused, were discharged. In fact the discharge order of 24-7-1988 would show that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that there was no evidence and that the Petitioner and another had no connection with the transaction and A. P. P. had conceded the position. The Respondent did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order of discharge.

(2.) By an order of 24-7-1978 the order of suspension was reviewed and the petitioner was reinstated. On 9-7-1981 petitioner received charge-sheet. The charges as set out against the petitioner were as under:

(3.) Aggrieved Petitioner preferred original Application No. 525 of 1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Before the learned Tribunal, it was urged that the order of dismissal is laconic as it does not mention anything except the expression as dismissed. It was submitted that the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority were one and the same. It was further submitted that the copies of documents were not supplied. It was then submitted that the order of discharge amounts to acquittal and as such the departmental enquiry could not have been initiated more particularly when the learned magistrate had found no evidence against the petitioner. It was submitted that the confessional statements dated 17-1-1977 and 6-1-1977 and panchanama dated 6-1-1977, could not have been relied upon. At any rate as the Petitioner had been discharged, it amounted to clean acquittal and no inquiry based on the same charge-sheet ought to have been held against the Petitioner. Dealing with the contention advanced, the learned tribunal was pleased to observe that the confessional statement in Criminal trial would not be admissible, but only the statement that leads to recovery would be admissible. However, as the enquiry was departmental enquiry, it would be open in the domestic enquiry to consider this material, as strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The tribunal then noted that the petitioner had not denied that he had made statement or that the panchanama was drawn although according to him the same was taken under pressure. The enquiry Officer had sought information from the Petitioner and was satisfied that they were true and voluntary. There was evidence in the form of two admissions and panchanama and noted that in so far as confessional statement is concerned, the disciplinary authority had come to the conclusion that the statement was voluntary and therefore was entitled to rely upon the said statement. The tribunal then noted the record placed before it and arrived at the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are not perverse and as such it is not for the tribunal to interfere with the same. In so far as third charge is concerned, again the learned tribunal concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. The tribunal noted that considering the nature of the misconduct, punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be irrational or disproportionate. For all the aforesaid reasons, the tribunal was pleased to dismiss the original Application.