MOHANDAS JETHANAND MAMTORA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks a writ or direction to the respondents compelling them to treat the petitioner as having retired from the services of the then Bombay Housing and Area development Board/authority in pursuance to the notice of voluntary retirement issued by the petitioner on 28-2-1979. It is also prayed that consequently the subsequent order of dismissal passed on 30-11-1984 may also be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant with the Bombay Housing and area development Board at the relevant time. It is alleged that he issued the notice dated 28-2-1979 seeking permission to retire voluntarily under the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the government of Maharashtra under Finance Department Government Resolution dated 4-3-1978. Admittedly there was no reply to this communication. It is further an admitted position that the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 16-5-1979 and a departmental inquiry was held against him, in which inquiry the petitioner was found guilty of 3 charges (1) that he absented from his duties with effect from 18-7-1978 without prior permission and proper sanction and did not report to duties inspite of repeated letters from superiors. Thus he was guilty of wilful defiance of the orders of the superior authorities, (2) he engaged himself in business of running a cinema theatre at Vapi District Balsad while in service of the Bombay Housing and Area development Board, and (3) that he was guilty of disobedience of the orders of the superiors to resume at the new station. The inquiry officer by his report dated 26. 11. 1981 though held the petitioner guilty of all the charges, he recommended punishment of reversion as Junior Assistant for a period of 2 years. The disciplinary authority, however, by its order dated 17-3-1982, although accepted the findings of the inquiry officer on all the charges decided to impose punishment of dismissal and, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(3.) IT is further an admitted position that in appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal by order dated 30-11-1984.