The Secretary to Government of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Shri.D.R.Kabre
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in view of the judgment relied on by the respondent could have made same order which was made in the case of Mr.Kulkarni. The respondent had already retired from…
Judgment
Shri.D.R.Kabre. ...Respondent. --- Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. For Petitioners. Mr.Sandip S.Jinsiwale, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.H.BHATIA,J. DATED: 8th April, 2008. P.C.:-
By this petition, the petitioners challenge 2 the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 4.2.1998 in Original application no.610 of 1992. That original application was filed by the respondent challenging the order passed by the State Government dismissing him from service. The order of dismissal of the respondent was made because he was found guilty of misconduct. The Tribunal in its order found that one Mr.Kulkarni was involved in the same incident and punishment of dismissal was imposed on him. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was approached by Mr.Kulkarni challenging the order of his dismissal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 15.12.1993 modified the order imposing punishment in case of Mr.Kulkarni and punishment of reducing pay by four grade increments in his time-scale of pay for a period of five years with permanent effect was imposed. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State Government. The Supreme Court in addition to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal directed Shri. Kulkarni to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the State Government. The Tribunal in the case of respondent relying on the oder of the 3 Supreme Court in the case of “Mr.Kulkarni”, set aside the order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent and directed the State Government to make a fresh order in relation to the punishment that was imposed on the respondent because by the date Tribunal decides the matter, the respondent had already retired from the service.
We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in view of the judgment relied on by the respondent could have made same order which was made in the case of Mr.Kulkarni. The respondent had already retired from the service, and therefore, the Tribunal left it to the judgment of the State Government as to which will be the appropriate punishment to be imposed on respondent. We do not find any grave illegality in the order. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DeSHMUKH, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4 ---
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.