BHARAT VIKRAM SHEWALE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND
Legal Reasoning
2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD2 WRIT PETITION NO. 5505 OF 2024ANIL PANDIT PATIL VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND3 WRIT PETITION NO. 5509 OF 2024SWATI PRAKASH PATILVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND4 WRIT PETITION NO. 5510 OF 2024BHARAT VIKRAM SHEWALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND5 WRIT PETITION NO. 5511 OF 2024SAVITA NIMBA SALUNKHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND6 WRIT PETITION NO. 5512 OF 2024DIPAK RAMLAL KADAM VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1 of 16 (( 2 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND7 WRIT PETITION NO. 5513 OF 2024JYOTI ASHOK PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND8 WRIT PETITION NO. 5516 OF 2024VILAS SHANTARAM PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND9 WRIT PETITION NO. 5517 OF 2024MANOJ RAVAN PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND10 WRIT PETITION NO. 5896 OF 2024TUSHAR SURESH PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND11 WRIT PETITION NO. 5900 OF 2024VIKRANT RAJENDRA NANDRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND12 WRIT PETITION NO. 5927 OF 2024SHAILESH RAVINDRA PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 2 of 16 (( 3 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND44 WRIT PETITION NO. 5525 OF 2024GANESH PRALHAD CHOUDHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND45 WRIT PETITION NO. 5526 OF 2024VAIBHAV BHATU SONAWANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND46 WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2024KUNAL NANABHAU GURAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND47 WRIT PETITION NO. 5528 OF 2024RUPESH SURESH BHADANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND48 WRIT PETITION NO. 5529 OF 2024RAKESH SURESH NERKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND49 WRIT PETITION NO. 5530 OF 2024PRAMOD NARAYAN CHAUDHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 3 of 16 (( 4 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND50 WRIT PETITION NO. 5531 OF 2024VILAS BABURAO MALI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND51 WRIT PETITION NO. 5532 OF 2024SANDIP VASANT PARDESHI VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND52 WRIT PETITION NO. 5533 OF 2024DEEPAK BHAGWAN NAGMAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND53 WRIT PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2024MAHENDRA GOVINDRAO AHIRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND54 WRIT PETITION NO. 5535 OF 2024VINAY UTTAM PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND55 WRIT PETITION NO. 5536 OF 2024PINTIBAI BHIMRAO SHIRSATH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 4 of 16 (( 5 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND56 WRIT PETITION NO. 5537 OF 2024PANKAJ SANTOSH MALI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND57 WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2024TUSHAR MADHUKAR DEORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND58 WRIT PETITION NO. 5539 OF 2024SHATRUGHAN CHANDAN BACHHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND59 WRIT PETITION NO. 5540 OF 2024NILESH NANABHAU KATE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND60 WRIT PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2024SHITAL SUNIL SALVE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND61 WRIT PETITION NO. 5542 OF 2024PRATIBHA KRUSHNARAO BHAMARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 5 of 16
Legal Reasoning
(( 6 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND62 WRIT PETITION NO. 5543 OF 2024AVINASH MANOHAR WAGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND63 WRIT PETITION NO. 5544 OF 2024URMILA SHRIRAM MALI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND64 WRIT PETITION NO. 5545 OF 2024MACHHINDRA CHHAGAN BIRHADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND65 WRIT PETITION NO. 5546 OF 2024BHARATI BHAVAN BHAMARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND66 WRIT PETITION NO. 5547 OF 2024BHANUDAS VASUDEV CHITTE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND67 WRIT PETITION NO. 5548 OF 2024BHAGWAN PANDIT GADHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 6 of 16 (( 7 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND68 WRIT PETITION NO. 5549 OF 2024SNEHAL SURESH PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND69 WRIT PETITION NO. 5550 OF 2024BHARATI SAHEBRAO KUKUSTE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND907 WRIT PETITION NO. 5906 OF 2024MANGALA NAMDEV PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND908 WRIT PETITION NO. 5907 OF 2024HIRABAI PRAKASH PAWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND909 WRIT PETITION NO. 5908 OF 2024UMESH SANTOSH MAHAJAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 7 of 16 (( 8 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND931 WRIT PETITION NO. 1516 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5653 OF 2024NITIN CHANDRABHAN WAGH AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND958 WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2024SANJAY FULCHAND SONAWANE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND1049 WRIT PETITION NO. 9904 OF 2022WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4950 OF 2024YOGESH ATMARAM SALUNKE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND2 WRIT PETITION NO. 5259 OF 2024PRAVIN RAMESH BORSEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND3 WRIT PETITION NO. 5360 OF 2024SUHAS HEMRAJ PATILVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 8 of 16 (( 9 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++AND4 WRIT PETITION NO. 5965 OF 2024SONALI RAVINDRA PATILVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND2 WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 OF 2024HEMANT ROHIDAS NIKAMVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND4 WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2023KUNAL MURALIDHAR PAWAR AND OTHERS VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .…Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocate,Mr. R. S. Pawar, Mr. Majit Shaikh Advocate h/f Mr. Sachin Deshmukh,Advocates for Petitioners in respective Petitions Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader a/w Mr. S. R. Yadav – Lonikar,Mr. S. K. Tambe, Mr. S. J. Salgare, Mr. B. M. Dhanure, Mr. V. M. Kagne,Ms Neha Kamble, Mr. R. K. Ingole, Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGPs forRespondent – State in respective Petitions Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar Mr. N. N. Desale, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Dhule Mr. B. S. Shinde, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Mr. R. N. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.6 in WP/5735/2024 .…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:21.06.2024 9 of 16 (( 10 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++PER COURT :- 1.In some of these matters, we had passed the followingorder on 12.06.2024.“1.In all these petitions, the learned Advocates for thePetitioners and the learned Senior Advocate, as well as thelearned Government Pleader and the AGPs, have addressed usat length. 2.We have perused the judgment delivered by thisCourt dated 19.12.2016 in Writ Petition No.1940 of 2016 atAurangabad, vide which the Petitioners in the said Petitionwere granted absorption and consequential orders weredirected to be issued and other benefits were extended to them.3.We have perused the order passed by this Courtdated 05.08.2022 in Writ Petition No.8092 of 2022, atAurangabad, wherein, it was specifically observed in paragraph3 that if the authorities desire to initiate action against any ofthese Petitioners by relying upon the findings of the SITinvestigation report, they would follow the due procedure as isprescribed in law and by adhering to the principles of naturaljustice.4.In all these matters before us today, all thePetitioners have suffered orders of termination from service,issued by various Zilla Parishads. As regards their contentionthat individual inquiries as to whether their documents werebogus and whether their entries in employment were illegaland without following the legal procedure, the judgmentdelivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Kaim Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and others – (2016) 7 SCC 615,clearly indicates that when a large number of employees are atissue, individual inquiries in matters of bogus documentationand bogus recruitment, need not be conducted. It is in this 10 of 16
Decision
(( 11 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++backdrop that this Court permitted the SIT to generate reportsin various matters. 5.However, if an employee is to suffer terminationfrom service on the basis of the SIT report, the law laid downby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mohd.Ramzan Khan – AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing Director ECILVs. B. Karunakar - AIR 1994 SC 1074, would clearly mandatethat such affected persons should at least get a copy of thereport in order to notice the actual findings against them asregards bogus documentation and surreptitious recruitment inemployment. In none of these matters, such procedure hasbeen followed despite the direction of this Court in WritPetition No.8092 of 2022. 6.The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of theZilla Parishads are under instructions to submit that none ofthese Petitioners were given the copies of the SIT report withthe specific finding arrived at against them in the SITinvestigation.7.In view of the above, issue notice to theRespondents. Since similar group of matters are posted on21.06.2024, all these matters would be listed on 21.06.2024 at2.30 p.m.8.The learned Government Pleader and AGPs, waiveservice of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Thelearned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf ofRespondent No.5 Zilla Parishad.9.We are informed by the learned Advocate of theZilla Parishad, that all these Petitioners have been relieved fromservice.10.Since a final relief cannot be granted at an interimstage, we direct that if these Petitioners have been relieved,there shall be no further recruitment for filling up of their 11 of 16 (( 12 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++vacant posts. Similarly, if they are in employment today andhave not been relieved, status-quo shall be maintained. TheRespondents shall note that we would be considering theprayers of the Petitioners in view of Mohd. Ramzan Khan(supra) and B. Karunakar (supra).”2. Today, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Sapkal, alongwith the learned Advocates for the Petitioners, draws our attention toparagraph 10 on internal page No.22 of the SIT inquiry report, whichwas tendered to the respective Zilla Parishad vide covering letterdated 09.02.2023. Clause 10 below the title “Nishkarsh VaShifarashi”, reads as under:-“ 10- ojhy vfu;fer lekos’kukckcr ,dLrj ofj”B vf/kdkjh Eg.kwulacaf/kr ftYgk ifj”kn T;k foHkkxh; vk;qDr dk;kZy;kP;kvf/kiR;k[kkyh vkgs R;k foHkkxh; vk;qDr dk;kZy;kus loZ lacaf/krkaukcktw ekaM.;kph oktoh la/kh nsmu lquko.kh ?ksmu lquko.kh}kjs >kysyhvfu;ferrk fuf’pr djkoh o R;kckcrpk Lo;aLi”V vgoky xzkefodklfoHkkxkl lknj dj.;kckcr f’kQkjl dj.;kr ;sr vkgs.”3. The learned Government Pleader, along with the AGPs,submits on instructions that none of these aggrieved Petitioners weresupplied with the SIT investigation report. The learned Advocates forthe Zilla Parishad submit on instructions that since the issue wasserious and grave, the orders of discontinuing the Petitioners wereissued by the respective Zilla Parishads. They, however, hasten to add 12 of 16 (( 13 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++that a show cause notice was issued to some of the Petitioners andmany of them have tendered their replies. They did not take thestand that they have not received the SIT report and that they are notaware of the conclusions drawn against them.4.The learned Advocates for the Petitioners submit thatthose Petitioners who received notices, some of them have taken theground that they are not aware as to what are the charges againstthem and what has been proved against them. 5.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Nidhi Kaim Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and others – (2016) 7 SCC 615, that whenthere are large number of individuals, individual or independentenquiries may not be feasible or practicable. So also, clause 10 of theSIT report reproduced above, indicates that a Committee has to beformed and the Committee would give an opportunity of hearing toeach of the persons who are named in the SIT report. 6.The learned Government Pleader submits on instructionsthat if this Court is inclined to entertain these Petitions, liberty begranted to the authorities to follow the course suggested in clause 10.The persons who figured in the SIT report would be supplied with the 13 of 16 (( 14 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++findings against them and the Committee would give them anopportunity of addressing it. 7.In view of the above, all these Petitions are partlyallowed. The impugned notices / orders of termination, standquashed and set aside with the following directions:-(a) The Competent Committee, as prescribed in clause 10,would issue notices to the persons whose names arementioned in the SIT report or those persons who arenoticed by the respective Zilla Parishads, to be ineligible forappointment as per the conclusions of the SIT report,irrespective whether their name has or has not appeared inthe report directly, so as to be heard by the Committee inpursuance to such notice of hearing. (b) The Petitioners would appear before the Committee interms of the notices received by them. We permit suchindividuals to tender their written submissions, if desired.(c) After such hearing is concluded, the Committee shall referto the material available with reference to the individualemployees and their written submissions/material placedbefore the Committee by such employees and draw anappropriate conclusion. Thereafter, the Committee shallissue appropriate orders. If any person is aggrieved by suchorder, he/she would be at liberty avail of a remedy as ispermissible in law. 14 of 16 (( 15 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++(d)Since the impugned orders are set aside, thosecandidates/Petitioners who have been terminated fromservice, shall be deemed to be reinstated with continuityalong with back-wages. (e)Considering the request of all the litigating parties beforeus, this exercise should be completed expeditiously orwithin 180 days, to be computed with effect from01.07.2024, since the Petitioners are also suffering anxietyand rigors of litigation. (f)The Petitioners assure us that they would render wholehearted cooperation and would not make attempts to delaythe matter as they are also interested in an early resolutionof this issue.(g)In the event, the Committee or the State Authorities findthat they are short of time, they are at liberty to move anapplication through the office of the Government Pleader,for seeking extension.8.Pending Civil Applications stand disposed off. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] 15 of 16 (( 16 ))2 to 12,44 to 69-WP-5505-2024++SMS 16 of 16