JAYSING BABURAO GHUGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 588 of 1991. By that order the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner who was holding the post of Joint Director of Agricultural, State of Maharashtra challenged the order passed by the State of Maharashtra imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on him for the misconduct which he was found to have committed. The Petitioner was working as in-charge Director of Horticulture between 1-7-1981 to 20-7-1982. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director of Horticulture, Maharashtra State. He was working as Director of Horticulture between February, 1982 and December, 1982. It was found that during this period certain action of the Petitioner amounted to misconduct. Therefore, the Government ordered departmental enquiry to be held against him. That order was made on 28-2-1986. A charge sheet levelling as many as eight charges was served on him. An officer was appointed to hold the departmental enquiry.

(2.) So far as departmental enquiry is concerned, the Petitioner did not file his reply to the charge sheet. He filed mere one line reply denying all the charges. He did not submit any explanation in relation to the charges. He applied for supply of copies of certain documents. He also filed a writ petition in the High Court making grievance about non-supply of certain documents to him. The High Court disposed of his writ petition by order dated 27th April, 1989. The High Court did not issue any direction for supply of any documents.

(3.) So far as participation in the departmental enquiry is concerned, to some extent he participated in the enquiry. But it appears that after his writ petition was decided, he did not participate in the enquiry, did not cross-examine any witness that were examined on behalf of the Government. The enquiry officer found that charges Nos. 1 & 4 were duly proved, charges Nos. 2, 3 & 8 were partially proved and charges Nos. 5,6 & 7 were not proved. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the Government, which is the disciplinary authority and the Government by order dated 3rd October, 1991 ordered imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement against the Petitioner.