BALKRISHNA NAMDEO KATKADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the services of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in January 1980 and subsequently promoted to the post of Legal Adviser, where he continues to work even presently. According to the petitioner because of his meritorious services and unblemish service record, he was promoted to the post of Legal Adviser. While acting in his official capacity he had recommended removal of one Mr. G.B. Mhaske, as he was involved in criminal case initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He was found guilty in the departmental inquiry. Somewhere in May 2005 one Mr. Uttam Khobragade was appointed as the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation and using his influence the said Vice Chairman victimised the petitioner for having recommended removal of Mr. Mhaske. Three chargesheets were served upon the petitioner on different grounds. They related to the finding recorded by the three member committee which was appointed on 26th July 2005 for looking into the allegations against one Mr. P.M. Salvi. The petitioner was not associated with the said inquiry. The show cause notice dated 3rd September 2005 as also the chargesheet served upon the petitioner makes a reference to the three member committee and its report. The 2nd chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 24th January 2006. The facility of use of official car was also withdrawn vide letter dated 5th January 2006. Thereafter on 13th November 2006 third chargesheet was served on the petitioner again referring to the three member committee report which was submitted on 14th December 2005.

(2.) On 29th November 2006 the petitioner made a representation to the Corporation requesting them to supply various detailed information and the documents in relation to the chargesheets served upon him. However, vide letter dated 24th January 2007 the petitioner was informed that the documents cannot be supplied to him as they were not in possession of the Corporation and despite this the petitioner was called upon to file reply to the chargesheets. The departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner is pending and he has been directed to participate in the inquiry vide letter dated 12th July 2007. On this premise the petitioner has made different prayers in the petition including quashing of chargesheets dated 3rd September 2005, 24th January 2006 and 13th November 2006. A further prayer has also been made that respondents be restrained from taking any action/ departmental inquiry in furtherance to the aforesaid chargesheets. He has also prayed that orders suspending the petitioner should also be quashed and all benefits with retrospective effect should be given to him. Further any recoveries in furtherance to the chargsheets shall not be permitted during the pendency of this petition. These prayers of the petitioner were opposed on behalf of the respondent Corporation and a short affidavit was filed on behalf of the Corporation denying merits in the petition. In this reply all that has been stated is that the allegations of bias are disputed. It is further averred that the Managing Director is competent to constitute the committee and had in fact constituted the committee. The chargesheets had been served upon the petitioner by the appropriate authority. Other averments have been denied generally and no specific reply has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the chargesheets are liable to be quashed and the petitioner is also entitled to other reliefs inter alia on the following grounds: