1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.6013/2007 (Mujim Roshan Sheikh vs. Municipal Council, Chandrapur and others ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: D.D. SINH A & SMT. V.A . NAIK , JJ. DATED: 27th March, 2008. *** Heard Mr J L Bhoot, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. M I Dhatrak, Adv.for Respondents 1 & 2 and Mr Mandpe, learned AGP for Respondent No. 3. 2. The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 6.11.2007 passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Chandrapur whereby de novo inquiry has been ordered against the petitioner on the basis of same charge sheet dated 20.1.2006 by appointing fresh Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner states that inquiry has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of same charges and the inquiry report dated 14.8.2007 was submitted to the Competent Authority by the Inquiry Officer in which Inquiry Officer has held that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that since the 2 petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, the Standing Committee if wanted to disagree with the said report, ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that if the petitioner would have given an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner would have been in a position to point out to the Standing Committee whether the Standing Committee can issue orders for starting de novo inquiry by appointing fresh Inquiry Officer, in view of the lad laid down by this Court. 3. Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 though supported the impugned order, has not disputed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Standing Committee. 4. Considered the rival contentions. In view of the above referred facts, it is evident that the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all charges. However since the Standing Committee has taken a different view than the one recommended by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report, in our view, it was necessary for the Standing Committee to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any decision on the said report particularly because the Standing 3 Committee has disagreed with opinion expressed by the Inquiry Officer. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned communication/ order dated 6.11.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Standing Committee who is directed to take a fresh decision on the basis of report submitted by the Inquiry Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above direction, petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE saha