Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, a retired government servant, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the decision of the Secretary, Public Works Department (respondent no.1) dated 28.11.2011, which rejected his representation seeking reduction of punishment from removal to reversion. The petitioner had been removed from service as a disciplinary measure. He made several representations dated 14/7/2011, 14/7/2012, 17/1/2012, 23/10/2012, and 27/10/2012, praying for reduction of punishment and consequential benefits such as pension, annual increments, etc. The respondent no.1 rejected the representation dated 14/7/2011 by order dated 28.11.2011. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to set aside that decision and for a direction to decide the other representations and reduce the punishment. The court, after hearing the petitioner in person and the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, observed that the punishment of removal was imposed after due disciplinary proceedings. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, stating that there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Punishment of Removal - Reduction of Punishment - Representation - The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought reduction of punishment from removal to reversion and consequential benefits. The respondent no.1 rejected his representation. The court held that the punishment of removal was imposed after due disciplinary proceedings and there was no ground to interfere with the decision. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the respondent no.1 dated 28.11.2011 rejecting the petitioner's representation for reduction of punishment from removal to reversion is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- punishment of removal
- reduction of punishment
- representation
- writ jurisdiction
- scope of judicial review
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 12
Writ Petition No.257/2013
A.H. Joshi, Sunil P. Deshmukh
Petitioner in person, Shri K.J. Ghute Patil (AGP) for respondents
Suresh s/o Gangadhar Dharasurkar
Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The Information Commissioner, Aurangabad; The Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of representation for reduction of punishment in disciplinary matter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the decision of respondent no.1 dated 28.11.2011 rejecting his representation, and for direction to decide other representations and reduce punishment from removal to reversion with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation for reduction of punishment from removal to reversion was rejected by respondent no.1.
Previous Decisions
Respondent no.1 rejected the petitioner's representation dated 14/7/2011 by order dated 28.11.2011.
Issues
Whether the decision of respondent no.1 dated 28.11.2011 rejecting the petitioner's representation is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for reduction of punishment from removal to reversion and consequential benefits.
Respondents opposed the petition, supporting the decision of the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi
The punishment of removal was imposed after due disciplinary proceedings and there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the present petition
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.
The punishment of removal was imposed after due disciplinary proceedings and there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority.
Procedural History
The petitioner made representations dated 14/7/2011, 14/7/2012, 17/1/2012, 23/10/2012, and 27/10/2012. Respondent no.1 rejected the representation dated 14/7/2011 by order dated 28.11.2011. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, which was heard and dismissed on 21.08.2013.
