wp2506.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2506 OF 2009 Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through President, Smt. Vanmala Julalsingh Rathod, R/o-"Mamta", Sane Guruji Nagar, Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Rajkumar Pratapsingh Rathod, R/o-Valthan Tanda, Post-Patnadevi, Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon, 2) Late Kakasaheb Julalbhau Rathod Primary Ashram School, Pimpri Haveli, Tq-Nandgaon, Dist-Nashik, Through:Head Master, (Deleted as per leave dt.27.9.2010), 3) Special District Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon, 4) The State of Maharashtra, Through: Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.P. Brahme Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.P. Shah Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... wp2506.09 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner - Management challenged the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer in appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 - employee. Respondent No.1 was working with the Management as cook since the year 1990. By communication/order dated 25th July, 2006, services of the Respondent No.1 were terminated. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with back- wages. wp2506.09 3 3. This Petition was filed on 28th January, 2009. By an order dated 25th October 2010, ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (E) was granted in favour of the Petitioner on condition that Petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- with salary savings bank account of Respondent No.1 Mr. Rajkumar Pratapsing Rathod within one week. Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner submits, that the amount was deposited. 4. Shri. Brahme, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that order of reinstatement with full back-wages, is bad in law and is contrary to the facts. The counsel raised specific objection to the order of full back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of M.D., Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, 2009 (2) S.C.C. Page 288. wp2506.09 4 5. Shri. Shah, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that this is a case wherein the employee working for more than 15 years, was abruptly terminated even without holding any departmental enquiry. The Respondent employee was not provided with an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and therefore, the Appellate Authority, in exercise of its discretion, directed reinstatement along with payment of full back-wages from the date of termination. 6. We have considered the facts of the present case. We find that without holding departmental enquiry, the services of the Respondent No.1 were terminated. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Appellate Authority in setting aside the order of termination. wp2506.09 5 7. On behalf of the Petitioner - Management it was submitted that directions to pay 100% back- wages are not proper. In the facts of the case, we find that neither of the parties had raised issue in respect of gainful employment of Respondent No.1 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, in the facts of the case, found it appropriate to direct the Management to reinstatement the Respondent No.1 with full back- wages. Under the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, it is further mentioned that amount of back-wages be disbursed from the non-salary grants available to the Petitioner - Management. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that leave be granted to the Petitioner - Management to conduct fresh enquiry against the Respondent No.1, if the Management so desires. The Petitioner - Management is entitled to hold departmental enquiry, if advised, in accordance with the Circular dated 3rd October, 1985 issued wp2506.09 6 by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Pune, the copy of which is annexed at page No.90 to the reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.3. 9. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV11