Dhanraj Sheshrao Kete v. The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 44 WRIT PETITION NO.11993 OF 2019 MURTUJA MOHAMAD ALI SHAIKH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11107 OF 2019 DHANRAJ SHESHRAO KETE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr Deshmukh Umakant B AGP for Respondents State: Mr P S Patil Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr S B Pulkundwar

CORAM

: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE :

13th February, 2020 ORDER:

1.

We asked Mr. Pulkundwar, learned counsel as to whether departmental enquiry is concluded against the petitioners. Learned counsel emphatically says that departmental enquiry is not concluded against the petitioners. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the preliminary enquiry, the petitioners were found liable. 2.

Liability could not have been fastened on the basis of preliminary enquiry. Departmental enquiry is yet to be concluded. In the preliminary enquiry, delinquent employee does not have any opportunity to defend himself. As the departmental enquiry is not concluded, it would be premature for the respondents to seek recovery from the petitioners. 3.

As far as lodging of criminal case is concerned the petitioners may take steps before the appropriate court. We are also not entertaining

the petitions to the extent of challenge to the preliminary enquiry report. 4.

Recovery claimed by the respondents shall not be efectuated unless and until the departmental enquiry is conducted against the petitioners. Depending upon the fnding of the departmental enquiry, the respondents may proceed further so far as recovery is concerned . 5.

Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. (SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) JPC