Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVITI, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition arises from the order of
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in
OA No.558 of 1991. The finding recorded by all the
authorities is that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum
of Rs.1440/- deducted from the employees and had not
deposited unti asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the
authorities have concluded that the petitioner has committed
misconduct. On that finding, the Enquiry Officer found him
guilty. The disciplinary authority removed him from service.
The Petitioner challenged the order in the High Court. The
High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ
petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The
Tribunal found that there is no proper explanation for the
inordinate delay in assailing the disciplinary action. That
apart, even on merits also, we do no think that there is any
case made out for interference. The finding is that the
petitioner has committed misappropriation of the public
money and his removal from service is an appropriate order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend
that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation
and that he was forced to deposit the money. We cannot
accept the contention in view of the fact that the
petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then
contended that the preliminary enquiry was not properly
conducted and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated by
principles of natural justice. We find no force in the
contention. The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with
the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet.
The former action would be to find whether disciplinary
enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After
full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had
lost its importance.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any
illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting
interference. The special leave petition is accordingly
dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2