Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1251 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Director, Town Planning Maharashtra and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Bhalchandra Vasantrao Kulkarni
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant, thereby upholding the order passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
(hereinafter referred to as the ’Tribunal’).
The controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
The respondent was working as a Peon in the
establishment of Director, Town Planning, Akola. An order of
termination was passed taking note of several acts of mis-
conduct by the respondent. The order of termination was
passed dispensing with inquiry in terms of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’). In the
order dated 7.5.1986 fifteen charges of misconduct were
referred to. The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Amravati,
Division Amravati, passed the order indicating therein that the
various acts of the respondent clearly demonstrated his
unsuitability and the reasons as to why it would not be
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as is referred to in
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore,
dispensing with the inquiry the concerned authority decided to
terminate him from service after giving him one month’s salary
instead of one month’s notice. It was noted that he was in
police custody from 30.4.1986 to 8.5.1986. All the employees
of the office were terrified due to his horrible acts and
possibility his resorting to tumult and terrify members of the
staff after release from police custody cannot be ruled out and
suspension would not be an effective means to check his
unlawful activities.
Legality of the order was challenged by the respondent by
filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur. After creation of the Tribunal, the writ
petition was transferred to the Tribunal.
The only ground taken by respondent before the Tribunal
in support of the petition was that the reasons for dispensing
with departmental inquiry were not recorded prior to the
passing of the impugned order dated 7.5.1986 and, in fact, it
had been recorded after the passing of the impugned order.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal accepted this plea referring to the original file
which was produced and the title of the order. The Tribunal
observed that initially it was recorded as "Sheet showing
reasons for removal of Shri B. Kulkarni" which was
subsequently corrected as "Sheet showing reasons for removal
of Shri B. Kulkarni, peon".
According to the Tribunal this change appears to have
been made to show that it was recorded prior to passing of the
order, but it was apparent that the same was corrected
subsequently. Accordingly, the order of termination was set
aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High
Court was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the
Tribunal’s view was correct.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that a bare reading of the entire order
dated 7.5.1986 clearly shows that the reasons were recorded
prior to the passing of the order. According to him even
purported change on which great emphasis was laid by the
Tribunal did not in any manner justify a different conclusion.
It was pointed out that the reasons recorded have not been
found inadequate by the Tribunal. The finding that the
subsequent correction was made is without any basis and
foundation.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the English translation as given does not
reflect the correct position and the original order which was in
a Marathi language has been referred to by the Tribunal to
conclude that change was subsequently made to make it
appear as if the reasons were recorded earlier.
The view expressed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the
High Court is clearly unsustainable for the simple reason that
as is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the alleged change is inconsequential. A reading of
the entire order makes the position crystal clear that the
reasons were recorded before the order was passed. A few
portions of the order would make the position clear beyond a
shadow of doubt. Two illustrations would suffice. The English
translation which is undisputed and is accepted to be correct
reads as follow:
"I am fully satisfied about this and as regional
competent officer I decide to terminate him
from service"\005... "An order to that effect is
being issued."
Above being the position, the order of the Tribunal as
well as the impugned order of the High Court deserve to be set
aside, and we direct accordingly.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.