High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD8 WRIT PETITION NO. 4445 OF 2019ANIL MAHARU SHINDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Mr. Tarekmobin Shaikh h/f Mr. S. N. Deshmukh , Advocate for thePetitionerMrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for the Respondent/StateMr. N. N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2025P.C. :-1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage ofadmission.2.This Petition takes exception to the order dated 08/02/2018passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in ZillaParishad Appeal No. 76/2017 confirming the order dated 04/05/2017passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, whereby thePetitioner was punished by bringing him to down to the basic pay scalepermanently.3.It is a case of the Petitioner that he was serving as aGramsevak of Zilla Parishad, Dhule. It is alleged by the Petitioner thaton 12/11/2000, the charge-sheet came to be issued against him bymaking false allegations and he was suspended from service. He was,8 WP 4445.2019.odt1 of 6
Legal Reasoning
however, reinstated in service on 05/01/2001 but no inquiry wasconducted in respect of the charge-sheet issued to him. The inquirycommenced only after about 15 years and without the charges beingproved it is held by the Inquiry Committee that the 9 out of 10 chargesof misconduct alleged against the Petitioner are proved. It is furthercase of the Petitioner that on the basis of the such findings of theinquiry, he was punished and the punishment is not sustainable in viewof the fact that no charge could be said to have been proved againsthim. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Appealunsuccessfully, hence, this Petition.4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submits thatit was not open for the Zilla Parishad to conduct inquiry after the lapseof 15 years of time to support his suggestion that no such inquiry couldbe permitted. He relied upon the the judgment of Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of UCO Bank and Others Versus Rajendra ShankarShukla1, P. V. Mahadevan Versus MD. T.N. Housing Board2 and State ofMadhya Pradesh Versus Bani Singh and Another3. It is his submission byreferring to the report of inquiry that though four witnesses were citedby the department, only one witness Mr. D. D. Patil was examined. It ishis submission that the Inquiry Officer has committed error in holdingcharge No.1 of alleged misappropriation on the ground that the1(2018) 14 SCC 922(2005) 6 SCC 6363199) (Supp) SCC 7388 WP 4445.2019.odt2 of 6 Petitioner Employee has failed to prove his innocence. With regard tothe other charges sought to be argued that unless evidence was led bythe department, onus does not get shifted upon the employee tosubstantiate his defence. It is informed to this Court that the employeeis now deceased. However, since the punishment imposed affects thepensionary benefits, the said order is impugned.5.Learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad supported theimpugned order. According to him, the correspondence on recordindicates that for substantial time requests were made for conductinginquiry and therefore, the Zilla Parishad cannot be blamed for nonconduct of the inquiry for a period of about 15 years. It is his furthersubmission that there are admission given by the employee in his replyand hence, findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer to that effect cannotbe faulted with. In so far as the charges said to have been proved in theinquiry, it is his submission that most of the charges are proved on thebasis of the documentary evidence and as such examination of anywitness was not necessary. It is his submission that considering thedocumentary evidence on record, it was for the employee to explain thecircumstances which were against him. All these amongst othersubmissions, Petition is sought to be dismissed.6.There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that theemployee was issued with charge-sheet on 13/11/2000. He was also8 WP 4445.2019.odt3 of 6 suspended from service. Further admittedly he was reinstated in servicein the year 2001. Now question arises as to whether there could be anyjustification for non conduct of the inquiry for long a period of 15 years.The answer thereto must be in negative. Firstly, the employee cannotbe held to be responsible for administrative lapses from the part of theZilla Parishad in failure to conduct the inquiry for period over 15 years.Even if accepted that some correspondents were made with the inquiryauthorities, this can not become a justification for non conduct of theinquiry for such a long period. The lapse of period of over 15 years hascertainly caused prejudice to the employee as he could not be expecteddefend himself appropriately in the inquiry after gap of over a decadeafter occurrence of alleged incidents.7.Apart from this, perusal of the record clearly indicates thatonly one witness was examined i.e. D. D. Patil, then Deputy Sarpanch,Grampanchayat Vishvanath, Tq. Dhule. It is pertinent to note that theInquiry Officer has held that the employee has committedmisappropriation of the amount recovered by way of taxes from thepeople. In this regard, however, no evidence is led in the inquiry.Inquiry Officer concluded that since the employee has not led anyevidence to dislodge the said charge, the same is held to be proved.This is wholly impressible in law. The initial burden is always on thedepartment to lead evidence to substantiate the charge may be on8 WP 4445.2019.odt4 of 6 preponderance of probabilities. In case the evidence is led, the onuswould shift upon the employee to support his defence. The inquiryreport itself indicates that there was no evidence with regard to thecommission of any act of misappropriation. Thus, the major charge ofmisappropriation has not been proved at all. 8.As far as other charges which are not serious in nature areconcerned, though it is sought to be argued that on the basis of thedocuments on record the charges could be said to be proved. However,in order to prove the said documents, some witness ought to have beenexamined by the department who would depose in the inquiry about thecorrectness/relevance of documents in question. Only after thedocuments are held to be proved, it would become necessary for theemployee to rebut the same. Perusal of the report of inquiry indicatesthat that all the charges are said to have been proved as the employeehas failed to substantiate his defence. The report of the Inquiry Officertherefore is not consistent with the point of law settled by now.9.Not only for the reason the inquiry was initiated after about15 years and there would no justification at all for not conducting theinquiry in reasonable time, but also in view of the fact that the ZillaParishad has failed to lead any evidence to prove the charges againstemployee, report and findigns of the Inquiry Officer therefore cannotsustain.8 WP 4445.2019.odt5 of 6 10.Now the employee is deceased and therefore, there is noquestion of conducting any fresh inquiry into the charges against him.This Court therefore, finds this to be not a case wherein Zilla Parishadcould now substantiate the charges against the employee.Consequently, Petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned orderstherefore are set aside.11.The LR’s of Petitioner are entitled for the monetary benefitsfollowing from setting aside of the orders impugned.12.Record is handed over to the learned Counsel for ZillaParishad.13.Petition stands allowed in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp8 WP 4445.2019.odt6 of 6