Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:6815-DB
1
wp 5363.21 jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.5363/2021
Gajanan Uddhav Dhage,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.- Service, R/o Kali (Dk),
Th Mahagaon, Distt Yavatmal. …. Petitioner.
Versus
1) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force),
Maharashtra State, ‘Vanbhavan’ Ramgiri Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2) Managing Director, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra
Limited FDCM Bldg. 59-B, Hingna Road, Ambazari, Nagpur.
3) Regional Manager, North Chandrapur Region, Forest Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Chandrapur.
4) General Manager, North Chandrapur Region, Forest Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Chandrapur. …. Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms Jaipurkar, AGP for resp. no.1.
Mr. T.M. Barapatre, Advocate for resp. nos.2 to 4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ.
DATE : 30-04-2026.
Oral Judgment (Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
R ule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of parties.
2. The present petition challenges order passed by
Respondent No. 2 on 01.04.2021 and the subsequent order dated
08.04.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3. The petition further
seeks to set aside the report submitted by Respondent No. 1 on
24.02.2021.
3. The facts which are stated in the petition are as under
:-
2
wp 5363.21 jud.odt
The Petitioner was employed as a Forest Guard with
the Respondent–Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra (FDCM) and was posted at Mahalaxmi Timber Sale
Depot, Sindewahi. On 15.02.2016, Memorandum of Charge was
issued and departmental proceedings were initiated against him
on allegations of misconduct. An inquiry was thereafter
conducted, which, according to the Petitioner, was in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer
held that petitioner guilty in it’s report. However, by a reasoned
order dated 27.06.2019, Respondent No. 4, i.e. the Disciplinary
Authority, upon consideration of the material placed before the
Inquiry Officer, exonerated the Petitioner of all the charges
thereby disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer.
However, vide communication dated 19.12.2019, Respondent
No.3, expressed an intention to review the order passed by
Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the Respondent–
FDCM, there exists no provision for review of an order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority. Reliance is placed on Rule 9 of the
said Rules to contend that the Managing Director i.e. Respondent
No.2 herein is the appropriate appellate authority against an order
passed by Respondent No.4 (General Manager). It is further
submitted that Respondent No.3 issued a notice without
recording any reasons for proposing to overturn the findings of
the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner submitted a reply dated
05.01.2020 to the said notice. However, without considering the
said reply, Respondent No.3, by order dated 13.02.2020, imposed
the punishment of removal from service upon the Petitioner.
3
wp 5363.21 jud.odt
4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to
the Respondent No.2 as provided under the said Rules. The said
appeal was heard on 26.06.2020 by Mr. Rambhau, who was then
holding the post of Managing Director, FDCM (Appellate
Authority) i.e. Respondent No.2. However, no order came to be
passed by the said authority, and the said person was subsequently
promoted and posted as PCCF (HoFF), Maharashtra State,
Nagpur/Respondent No.1, and was accordingly relieved from the
post of Managing Director, FDCM. Thereafter Mr. Wasudevan
took charge as Managing Director of FDCM i.e the Respondent
No.2 herein. In this backdrop, on 01.04.2021, the said
Respondent No. 2, instead of granting a hearing to the Petitioner
while deciding the appeal, sought personal observations from his
predecessor-in-office, i.e. Mr. Rambhau. Said officer i.e.
Mr. Rambhau forwarded his observations/conclusions on
24.02.2021. Based only on such observations, Respondent No.2
proceeded to pass an order dated 08.04.2021 imposing
punishment. By the said order, although the Petitioner was
reinstated in service, it was further directed that the period of his
termination shall not be counted for any purpose and shall be
treated as extraordinary leave. Additionally, by the impugned
order, recovery of an amount of Rs.94,215/- was also directed
against the Petitioner. It was further directed that the seniority of
the Petitioner shall be reckoned from the date of his
reinstatement. All the aforesaid orders are the subject matter of
the present petition.
5. Without going into the merits of the matter, learned
Counsel for the Petitioner has primarily raised two grounds. The
first ground pertains to the authority which heard the matter not
4
wp 5363.21 jud.odt
being the authority that has passed the impugned order. It is
submitted that one Mr. Rambhau, who was then working as
Managing Director of FDCM/Respondent No.2, heard the appeal
as the Appellate Authority, whereas the impugned order came to
be passed by Mr. Wasudevan, who had never granted a hearing to
the Petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the principles of
natural justice have been violated, inasmuch as it was incumbent
upon the successor-in-office of the Appellate Authority to afford a
hearing to the Petitioner before imposing any punishment.
6. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Automotive Tyre
Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority & Ors.,
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258, particularly paragraph 84 thereof,
which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“84. In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had
been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had
allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives
to present the relevant information before him in terms of
Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order
were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion
to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final
order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of
natural justice. Thus, the impugned notification having
been issued on the basis of the final findings of the DA,
who failed to follow the principles of natural justice,
cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly.”
7. The learned AGP, as also learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.2 to 4, upon being confronted, does not dispute
the said position.
5
wp 5363.21 jud.odt
8. In that view of the matter, and without going into the
merits of the rival contentions, which are kept open to be agitated
before the competent authority, the order dated 01.04.2021
issued by Respondent No.2, as well as the intimation dated
08.04.2021 issued to the petitioner by Respondent No.3, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
9. The matter is relegated to the Respondent No.2 to
decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh after granting him
opportunity of hearing.
10. It is directed that the petitioner being reinstated in
service, would continue to be in service till the decision of the
appeal by the Respondent No.2.
11. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande , J. ) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar J. )
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/05/2026 17:16:24