SATISH PRALHADRAO RAIKWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner was appointed as Daftari and posted in the Industrial Court, Amravati. Considering the performance of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Bailiff vide order dated 31.8.1990. The petitioner thereafter was posted as Clerk-cum- Typist vide order dated 29.11.2000. Vide order dated 19.5.1993, the petitioner was transferred from Amravati to Nagpur Industrial Court and since 1993, the petitioner was working in the Industrial Court, Nagpur till the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner was entrusted with the job of supplying certified copies of orders passed by the Labour Court as well as proceedings and documents. While working in the office of Labour Court, Nagpur, the petitioner was caught by the Anti Corruption Bureau while accepting bribe and, therefore, was prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 10.4.2008 passed by the Special Court in Criminal Case No. 16/2000. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of conviction before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is admitted and pending. The respondent no.2 in view of provisions of Rule 13(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, without giving opportunity of making representation in respect of penalty proposed to be imposed, passed the impugned order dated 28.4.2008 and dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.4.2008. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Shri Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that action of the respondents is inconsistent with the first proviso to Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1979, which requires grant of opportunity to the Government servant for making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i). It is contended that in the instant case, the respondents failed to give the said opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.