WP/741/1994. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 1994. PETITIONER : Krishna S/o Sitaram Kumbhare, aged major, r/o Ramtek, Tah. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A. R. Taiwade, AGP for Respondent no.1. Shri B. M. Lonare, Advocate for the respondent no.2 absent. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: 4th JANUARY 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. H. Joshi, J) 1. This is a writ petition by a former employee of Zillah Parishad, Nagpur. 2. The petitioner was charge sheeted, for misconduct under various heads. WP/741/1994. 2 3. The charges were namely : dereliction in duty, unauthorized absence, willful disobedience of orders of superiors, irresponsible behaviour akin to drunkenness while on duty, failure to furnish work book/diary, failure to carry out compliance of observations in the inspection of the Chief Executive Officer, creating obstruction in the official work, failure to improve in spite of communication of adverse remarks. 4. The matter of charge was referred to the Enquiry Officer attached to the Office of Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on few dates. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent on the date of hearing i. e. 22-2-1991. The petitioner has sent on 22-2-1991 a telegram from his Village at 11.30 a.m. i.e. on the date of enquiry. 6. The Enquiry Officer having seen absence of the delinquent closed the enquiry for orders. 7. The record shows that the telegram was received in the Office of Enquiry Officer on 25-2-1991. The Enquiry Officer did not take cognizance of said telegram. 8. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to render his findings which are dated 22-3-1991, and found the petitioner guilty of most acts of misconducts charged of. 9. The Chief Executive Officer issued to the petitioner WP/741/1994. 3 a show cause notice against punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has replied the show cause notice. The petitioner’s explanation was not accepted and the Chief Executive Officer, and he inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement. 10. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the penalty, in which he has failed, and therefore, filed this writ petition. 11. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. R. Saboo for the petitioner at length, and learned AGP for State Mrs. A. R. Taiwade. 12. The main challenge raised before this Court is about failure to give reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing in the process of Departmental enquiry. 13. The petitioner does not dispute that when the date 22-2-1991 was fixed as next date, the petitioner was present and he had noted the next date of hearing, and signed in token on the Roznama. 14. As noted earlier, the petitioner had sent a telegram on 22nd February 1991 itself that too at 11.30 a.m. It may have been quite possible that due to sickness and being bed ridden, the petitioner was unable to send the telegram in advance. In such eventuality, the petitioner could have offered the factual details of his ill health and the reason of sickness, its nature of gravity, and also if it was impossible for him to send WP/741/1994. 4 sent the telegram before hand. Nothing of this sort has been done by the petitioner. 15. The petitioner even did not bring on record at any time namely before the Enquiry Officer or the competent authority or before the appellate forum, nor even before this Court as to what precluded him from sending an application for adjournment in advance or later on come forward for explaining the circumstances which had prevented the petitioner from appearing before the Enquiry Officer. 16. In absence of any explanation, the conduct of the petitioner in sending telegram on the date of enquiry that too at 11.30 a.m., knowing fully well that it may not reach the Enquiry officer in time, is an act of declining to avail an opportunity of hearing afforded to him. 17. Petitioner could have appeared before the enquiry sooner and could have prayed for relegating the enquiry to 22-2-1991 and participation therein. Such request could have been made before competent authority or in appeal too. Petitioner’s neglect and apathy weighs against him. 18. The petitioner’s clamour that he was not afforded reasonable and fair opportunity is, thus, without any foundation. 19. This Court has seen that various acts of misconduct and collective effect thereof is serious, and the petitioner was extremely casual and callous towards entire procedure of enquiry, the statutory appeal and even in present writ petition. WP/741/1994. 5 20. The petition has no merit. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs. JUDGE JUDGE //MULEY//