Rehnabano Mohammad Sayeed Kureshi v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai And 2 Others

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application [MCA] No.141 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6704 of 2018 (D) (Ku. Vidya Ambadas Thakare vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.142 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6807 of 2018 (D) (Rehanabano Mohammad Sayeed Kureshi vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.143 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6614 of 2018 (D) (Vikasrao Bhagorao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.144 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6705 of 2018 (D) (Ku. Preeti Sudhakar Dhadse vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.145 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6615 of 2018 (D) (Ku. Rama Ramkrushna Gawande vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.146 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6703 of 2018 (D) (Sou. Surekha Subhash Mawale vs. State of Maharashtra & others) with Civil Application [MCA] No.147 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6702 of 2018 (D) (Sau. Mandakini Madhav Kale vs. State of Maharashtra & others)

2/3 with Civil Application [MCA] No.148 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.6616 of 2018 (D) (Sau. Vandana Gajanan Chandan vs. State of Maharashtra & others) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OfÏce notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri Mangesh Bute, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 7 th FEBRUARY, 2019.

In all these matters, a common ground taken is that this Court while disposing of each of the writ petitions, in respect of which these applications are filed, did not consider the law applicable to the facts of the case and without really hearing the petitioners in all these matters, disposed of all the petitions only on the ground that remedy of appeal was available to each of the petitioners and, therefore, granting liberty to each of the petitioners to exhaust that remedy, disposed of the petitions.

However, according to the learned Counsel for the applicants, the fact remains that the law glaringly applicable to the facts of the present case, which was about vitiating of the order of punishment, which was passed in each of these cases without following the due procedure of law and granting of adequate opportunity of hearing to these applicants. On going through the reasons recorded by this Court in the order passed on 01/11/2018, a common order in all these petitions, we cannot but

3/3 agree with the learned Counsel for the applicants on what he has submitted before us. The law is well settled and it is that no major penalty can be imposed without following the procedure prescribed under the rules. This law also would show that an adequate opportunity of hearing regarding the proposed major penalty is required to be given to the delinquent employee. If this procedure is not followed, it would strike against the fundamental right of the petitioners and also other rights, which have been made available to them under the rules applicable to them. This aspect of the matter, so important one, renders the issue of availability of remedy of appeal quite insignificant and since this was not considered by this Court earlier, we are of the view that the common order of disposal of all these matter need to be recalled and, accordingly, it is recalled.

All the petitions be restored to the original file forthwith and placed before this Court immediately for further consideration.

The applications are disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *sandesh