1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.797/2003 Hiramn Vithoba Aswale Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner Mr.N.P.Deshpande,AGP for Res.1 to 3 CORAM : V.C.Daga,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date : 16th February,2009. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.appearing for the respondents. This petition is directed against the order dated 19/11/1999 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,Mumbai, in Original Application No.309/99. 2] The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was suspended for having committed misconduct.The departmental enquiry was held against him and ultimately minor punishment for stoppage of one increments was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3] The aforesaid order of punishment was the subject matter challenged in O.A.No.659/99 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal wherein the order of punishment was upheld. However,so far as the period of suspension is concerned the Tribunal observed as under :- '' We however,find some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before treating the period of suspension as 2 such the petitioner was not heard or given a notice in that behalf . Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining time, Foreign Service...) Rules,1982 provides for the procedure for treatment of period of suspension when a Government servant is reinstated after suspension. This procedure does call for a specific notice to be given to the Government servant before a decision is taken in this respect. There is no indication that this was done. Under the circumstances the following order is passed. The application is partly allowed. The portion of the order relating to the treatment of the period of suspension is hereby quashed and set aside. The corresponding portion of the Disciplinary Authority' s order of 29/7/1995 (not specifically impugned herein) should also be deemed as quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to pass a fresh order concerning the treatment of the period of suspension having regard to Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Civil Services(Joining Time,Foreign Services...)Rules,1979 and other relevant laws,rules ,etc.if any. This order should be passed within two months from the date of receipt of this order. With these directions the application stands disposed off. No order as to costs' '. 4] After the aforesaid order was passed by the Tribunal a show cause notice dated 4/9/1998 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file his reply to the show cause notice. 5] The petitioner filed his reply on 1/11/1998. The respondent no.3 without granting any opportunity of personal hearing and without recording reasons in support of the order, passed an order dated 6/1/1999 rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply and directed that the period from 26/7/1994 to 5/7/1995 be treated as the period of suspension. 3 6] Not satisfied with the above order, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.309/99 before the Tribunal. The submissions advanced by the petitioner contending that there is a breach of principles of natural justice did not find favour with the Tribunal. With the result O.A. came to be rejected. Against this order present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7] The petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. Firstly, for not giving personal hearing and secondly for want of reasons. He further submits that such illegality could not have been confirmed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19/11/1999. He thus,submits that both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and rule is liable to be made absolute. 8] Learned A.G.P.for the respondent-State fairly conceded that contentions advanced by the petitioner needs acceptance. 9] In the aforesaid circumstances there is no option for us but to set aside both the impugned orders one dated 6/1/1999 and another passed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 19/11/1999. 10] In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'b' with the directions to respondent no.3 to offer opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner with further direction to pass reasoned order following the principles of natural 4 justice . All the contentions on merits are kept open. No order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.)