SHIRISHKUMAR RANGRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, has questioned the legality, propriety, justifiability and bona fides of the order dismissing the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division/judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed on 2-3-1994, by the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner after obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Law from Marathwada University at Aurangabad, enrolled himself as an Advocate and started legal practice at Parola in District Jalgaon from 9th June, 1980 till 19th February, 1984. He was appointed as Police Prosecutor and worked as such from 20th February, 1984 to 30th April, 1988 in Jalgaon District in the courts at Yawal and Ravel as also in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. On being selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, he was appointed on probation for a period of two years. Initially, he was posted as Civil Judge, Junior Division - J. M. F. C. on 2nd May, 1988 at Parbhani, District Parbhani. He was thereafter posted to the newly established Court at Pathari, District Parbhani, from 30th March, 1989, where he worked for 2 years and 3 months. From Pathari, the petitioner was transferred to Sakoli during the summer vacation and thus, from June 1991, he was working as Civil Judge, Junior Division - J. M. F. C. till 29-4-1992. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29-4-1992 in contemplation of a certain Departmental Enquiry. While the petitioner was under suspension, his period of probation was retrospectively extended for a period of two years from 2-5-1990. According to the petitioner, during the entire period of his services in Parbhani District, both at Parbhani and Pathari, he worked in an upright manner giving no cause for any grievance of any type. He maintained cordial relations with the members of the Bar and decided the matters without fear and favour and not succumbed to be brow-beaten or bullied by any member of the Bar. His disposals throughout the period were very good and were treated so and he received the remarks at each quarter as "noteworthy". Such remarks were communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2-the High Court from time to time through the District Judge, Parbhani. While the petitioner was working at Pathari, the District Judges inspected the Pathari Court in the month of March, 1991 and 1992. On both the occasions, the work of the petitioner was found satisfactory. The petitioner concentrated to decide the old matters as directed by the Honble High Court and endeavoured to reduce the pendency of cases. During his posting at Pathari, as many as three District Judges visited Pathari Court, including Shri R. M. Bapat (Honble Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court), Shri R. G. Barlinge and Shri V. B. Adhatrao.

(3.) THOUGH Pathari was tahsil head-quarters, there was no Court. The Court was opened on 30th March, 1989. Prior to this, Civil Court at Sailu was catering to the entire judicial work Civil and Criminal of Pathari tahsil. Thus, there was only one bar at Sailu in Pathari tahsil. Some of the lawyers residing at Pathari were required to go to Sailu for their professional work. On being insistent demand for a separate Court at Pathari, the Court was opened at Pathari on 30th March, 1989. The petitioner was the first Presiding Officer at Pathari. Due to the establishment of the Court at Pathari, quite a large number of villages and towns formerly falling under the jurisdiction of Sailu Court were detached therefrom. More than 60% of work was from Pathari area. At Pathari there was a Tahsil Court, but not the Court of Civil Judge. Because of the establishment of the new Court at Pathari, the members of the Bar at Sailu were very much affected and consequently, a writ petition was filed before the High Court at Aurangabad, challenging the exclusion of village Manoli and several other villages which were declared to be attached and falling under the jurisdiction of the newly established Court at Pathari. Some leading members of the Bar including Shri A. S. Kharkar, residing at Sailu were disturbed on account of establishment of new Court at Pathari as they were required to come from Seloo. There appeared to be some disharmony and rivalry between the members of Pathari Bar and those coming from Sailu.