J R DANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of his dismissal from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge, J. D. and judicial Magistrate, F. C. on 2-12-1981. Thereafter, he underwent the usual training and also completed his probation period. The petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar on 6-1-1987. In the course of his service, the petitioner was posted at Vaijapur in June, 1990 and there he worked for a year. Thereafter, he was transferred to Akot. The petitioner has stated that on the basis of a complaint made by one of the advocates at Vaijapur and the resolution passed by the Bar Association, Vaijapur a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the District Judge, and thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the charges that he was in the habit of consuming liquor and presiding over the Court in the state of intoxication, that he was not observing the working hours and was in the habit of going to the dais and retiring to the chamber as per his whim and that, he was continuously giving inadequate disposal. Pending the said inquiry, the petitioner was suspended on 9-3-1992. The Inquiry Officer (respondent No. 3) thereafter, submitted his report which was accepted by respondent No. 2 i. e. the High Court who in turn, recommended to respondent No. 1 i. e. the State of maharashtra to dismiss the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the recommendation made by the High Court came to be accepted and the petitioner was dismissed from service by a order dated 18-3-1994. It is this order as well as the whole departmental proceeding which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

(3.) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that while conducting the departmental enquiry, principles of natural justice and fair play were violated. The petitioner was not allowed to engage any legal practitioner to defend himself though he was entitled to do so under Rule 9 (8) of the maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1979 ). According to the petitioner, besides other witnesses, two District judges were examined as witnesses in the enquiry and, therefore, it was not psychologically possible for the petitioner to cross-examine them effectively. The petitioner has further contended that he was not supplied with any copy of the report of the inquiry officer. The third grievance made by the petitioner is that no copy of the recommendation made by the High Court to the State Government for dismissing the petitioner from service was supplied. Similarly, the petitioner was not given personal hearing by the High Court. The petitioner has contended that before passing the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 i. e. Maharashtra Public Service Commission was not consulted as per Rule 9 (4) (ii) (a) of the Rules, 1979. Thus, according to the petitioner, the entire proceeding was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and legal rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that the order of dismissal from service is unduly harsh. On these grounds, the petitioner has prayed for the above mentioned reliefs.