Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Retired Executive Engineer Challenging Censure Order. Censure Order Quashed as Disproportionate and Based on Stale Allegations from 1971-1974.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 22
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Manohar Ganpatrao Kapsikar, a retired Executive Engineer, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 04.03.2008, which dismissed his Original Application No.1127/1993. The petitioner sought quashing of the censure order dated 20.03.1992 issued by the respondent State of Maharashtra. The petitioner had served as Executive Engineer in the Jayakwadi Project from September 1971 to March 1974. After his transfer, he handed over charge to his successor. In 1992, nearly 18 years later, a censure order was passed against him for alleged irregularities during his tenure. The petitioner superannuated on 31.03.1992, and the censure order did not affect his retiral benefits or cause monetary loss. However, he sought to have the blot of censure removed. The court considered the staleness of the allegations and the disproportionate nature of the punishment. The court noted that the petitioner was 84 years old and litigating to restore his honour. The court held that the censure order was based on stale allegations and was disproportionate, and thus quashed the order. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of censure was set aside.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Censure Order - Proportionality - Censure order dated 20.03.1992 passed against petitioner, a retired Executive Engineer, for alleged irregularities during 1971-1974 - Court held that the punishment of censure was disproportionate and the allegations were stale, warranting quashing of the order - Held that the order of censure is set aside (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order of censure dated 20.03.1992 passed against the petitioner, a retired Executive Engineer, was sustainable in law, considering the allegations were stale and the punishment was disproportionate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of censure dated 20.03.1992 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

Law Points

  • Censure order
  • proportionality
  • stale allegations
  • natural justice
  • service law
  • disciplinary proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 12

WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2012

2017-12-04

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SUNIL K. KOTWAL

Mr. P.R. Patil, Smt. V.S. Chaudhary

Manohar Ganpatrao Kapsikar

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's Original Application against a censure order.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the censure order dated 20.03.1992 and the Tribunal's judgment dated 04.03.2008.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, a retired Executive Engineer, sought to remove the blot of a censure order passed against him for alleged irregularities during his tenure from 1971 to 1974.

Previous Decisions

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Original Application No.1127/1993 on 04.03.2008.

Issues

Whether the censure order dated 20.03.1992 was sustainable given the staleness of allegations and proportionality of punishment.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the censure order was based on stale allegations and did not affect his retiral benefits, but he sought to restore his honour. The respondent State supported the order.

Ratio Decidendi

A censure order based on stale allegations and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct is liable to be quashed, especially when it does not affect monetary benefits but impacts the honour of a retired employee.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner, who is at the twilight of his life, desires that the blot of the order of censure be washed away. The impugned order of censure does not in any way affect his retiral benefits and no monetary loss has been caused to him by the impugned order.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Original Application No.1127/1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 04.03.2008. He then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 for Lack of Sanction. Section 42 of the Act Requires Authorization for Prosecution; Absence of Sanction Renders FIR Unlawful.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Retired Executive Engineer Challenging Censure Order. Censure Order Quashed as Disproportionate and Based on Stale Allegations from 1971-1974.