Bombay High CourtWP/7899/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Rani Shashikant Govindpurkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-07-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7899 OF 2016 RANI d/o SHASHIKANT GOVINDPURKAR.

-VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.

...

Shri A.D.Gadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S.W.Munde, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 22nd July, 2016 Per Court:

Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no dispute that by order dated 20.01.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar has cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner for the reason stated in the said order which includes allegations of misconduct.

The Petitioner has specifically preferred an appeal dated

*2* 01.03.2016 for challenging the said order dated 20.01.2016 before the Divisional Commissioner at Nashik. The Petitioner contends that under Rule 14(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, the remedy of appeal is available, which would lie before Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner at Nashik. The grievance is that Respondent No.2 has forwarded the file of the Petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar by letter dated 08.03.2016, which Authority i.e. Respondent No.3 herein has already passed the order of termination dated 20.01.2016. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing Respondent No.

2 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik to consider the appeal filed by the Petitioner on it's own merits and in accordance with the Rules and Law applicable, including the issue as to whether, it is maintainable. Needless to state, the issue of maintainability of the appeal shall be considered by Respondent No.2 after hearing all the parties. It is expected that Respondent No.2 shall issue notice to the litigating sides and proceed to decide the pending appeal filed by the Petitioner. At this stage, the learned AGP submits that the Petitioner can appear before Respondent No.2 on 03.08.2016 (Wednesday) at 03:00 pm and Respondent No.

*3* maintainability of the appeal after hearing the Petitioner. The Petitioner is agreeable and undertakes to remain present for the said hearing.

kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)