GANESH TULSHIRAM PAGARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned letter / order dated 02.03.2016 issued by respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed to transfer the petitioner to other Municipal Council in Beed District. The said order is passed on the basis of complaint filed by one Mr. Anil Mate, President of Maharashtra Rajya Nagar Parishad Karmachari Sanghatana and others, against the petitioner and under the influence of Mr. Vinayak Mete, the Member of Legislative Council, Maharashtra State. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked in the various capacities in the Municipal Council, Beed, since 01.05.2001. His service record is unblemished. The State of Maharashtra, vide its Resolution dated 02.08.2011, changed the cadre of the petitioner from the Municipal Council as the State level Cadre of the Municipal Council and the services of the petitioner are regularized, vide order dated 02.08.2011. The impugned order is an outcome of rivalry between the employees Unions. The petitioner is a Leader of one Union. Shri Anil Mate, who was member of Union, left the petitioner's Union and became member of the rival Union. The petitioner is working in the accounts Division of the Municipal Council since 19.01.2015. The Union leader of rival Union filed complaint to the District Collector against the petitioner and also approached Shri Vinayakrao Mete, Member of Legislative Council ("MLC" for short). It is submitted that the said MLC written a letter to the District Collector on 10.06.2015 and directed the District Collector to transfer the services of the petitioner to any other Municipal Council. The learned counsel invites our attention to the copies of letters, which are placed on record.

(3.) He submits that in pursuance of the said letter, the District Collector called the report from the Chief Officer, Municipal Council. However, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, opined that there is no complaint pending against the petitioner and his services are satisfactory. It is submitted that though there was no substance in the complaint filed by Shri Anil Mate, the respondent State Authorities under the influence of the letter written by the MLC and complaint filed by Shri Anil Mate, concocted enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned letter is issued by the Commissioner. It is submitted that the Chief Officer submitted a report to the Sub Divisional Officer stating therein that the petitioner had worked with the utmost care as well as it was specifically stated that in the year 2011-12, the petitioner had received excellence award for his work. The learned counsel invites our attention to the report submitted by the Chief Officer. It is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer issued a notice to the petitioner and called his explanation, vide its letter dated 05.10.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his say / reply on 09.10.2015. The learned counsel invites our attention to the copy of notice and reply to the said notice.