Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hanumanprasad Durgaprasad Mishra, was appointed as a Junior Clerk on a purely temporary basis on 22 July 1981 and posted at the Government godown in Yeotmal. He worked there from July 1981 to November 1982. A show cause notice dated 26 June 1983 was issued to him, describing him as Godown Keeper, charging him with misconduct of issuing foodgrains and edible oil in excess of the quantities mentioned in permits, causing a loss of Rs. 24,829.67 by colluding with fair price shop keepers. The petitioner replied on 13 July 1983 denying the allegations. Subsequently, a memorandum dated 9 August 1983 was served levelling six charges against him along with three others. The petitioner submitted a reply reiterating that he was appointed as Junior Clerk, not Godown Keeper, and that the actual work of issuing foodgrains was done by the Godown Manager. He also stated that he was not given any oral or written order to work as Godown Keeper, and that the Godown Manager had paid the amount of loss. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, which dismissed his application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court held that the Tribunal had considered the evidence and found that the charges were proved. The court noted that the petitioner was working as Godown Keeper and had admitted to maintaining accounts. The court found no perversity in the findings and upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Sufficiency of Evidence - Scope of Judicial Review - The court examined whether the findings of the enquiry officer were based on evidence and whether the Tribunal's order suffered from any error of law - Held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The Tribunal's order was upheld (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's application challenging the disciplinary action and dismissal order, and whether the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse or based on no evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 28/02/2002.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Natural justice
- Scope of judicial review
- Temporary employee
- Misconduct
- Loss to government
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 98
Writ Petition No. 4013 of 2003
V.C. Daga, A.B. Chaudhari
Mr. S. D. Thakur for petitioner; Mrs. B. H. Dangre for respondent No. 1; Mr. Amol Patil for respondents
Hanumanprasad Durgaprasad Mishra
The Collector, Yeotmal District, Yeotmal; The Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati; The State of Maharashtra; The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application against disciplinary action and dismissal from service.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was dismissed from service on charges of misconduct for issuing foodgrains and edible oil in excess of permitted quantities, causing loss to the government.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Transfer Application No. 1376 of 1992 (original writ petition No. 2689 of 1990) on 28/02/2002.
Issues
Whether the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's application.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was appointed as Junior Clerk, not Godown Keeper, and that the actual work of issuing foodgrains was done by the Godown Manager.
The respondents argued that the petitioner was working as Godown Keeper and the charges were proved based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court cannot re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's order was based on evidence and did not suffer from any error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the order dated 28/02/2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, Bench Nagpur in Transfer Application No. 1376 of 1992 (original writ petition No. 2689 of 1990) whereby the petition/application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 22/7/1981. Show cause notice dated 26/6/1983 and memorandum dated 9/8/1983 were issued. After enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a writ petition (No. 2689 of 1990) which was transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as Transfer Application No. 1376 of 1992. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 28/02/2002. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 20/12/2006.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
