1 wp7790-09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7790/2009 Pravin S/o Jagannathrao Andole Age 45 years, Occ-Service Presently working as Assistant Superintendent, Civil Judge, S.D. Hingoli, R/o Hingoli, Dist.Hingoli. .. Petitioner Versus The Disciplinary Authority/ Principal District & Sessions Judge, Parbhani Dist.Parbhani. .. Respondent .... Mr.Sachin Deshmukh,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.R.N.Dhorde,Adv. for respondent ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of 2 wp7790-09.odt parties, petition is heard finally. 2] The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk at the relevant time at Basmat. At present, the petitioner is working as Assistant Superintendent at Hingoli. An enquiry was initiated by learned Principal District Judge in respect of missing of record of S.C.C. No.278/03 against Shri D.R.Wavhale, Senior Clerk. The petitioner was examined as witness during the said domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer- the Additional Sessions Judge-I Hingoli endorsed on the preliminary enquiry report of the presiding officer wherein it was held that Mr.D.R.Wavhale was responsible for missing of the record of S.C.C.No.278/03. The disciplinary authority the learned Principal District Judge by an order dated 14/10/09 observed that the Enquiry Officer erred in law in appreciating and assessing the evidence adduced before him against the delinquent. It was the view of the Principal District Judge that the delinquent deserved to be exonerated in the said case. It was further observed that regular enquiry is required to be initiated against Shri Andole for fabricating record and falsely implicating innocent co-employee in 3 wp7790-09.odt a departmental proceeding. The Principal District Judge- Disciplinary Authority passed following order on 14/10/2009 : “1] The delinquent Shri D.R.Wavhale, Senior Clerk, presently working in CJJD Court, Basmathnagar, is exonerated from the charges levelled against him. 2] However, a regular Departmental Enquiry be initiated against Shri P.J. Andole, presently working as Assistant Superintendent, CJSD Court, Hingoli for fabricating false record and falsely implicating innocent co-employee in a departmental proceeding.” 3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner in the proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry against Shri D.R.Wavhale, the learned Principal District Judge passed order of Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. 4] The respondent filed affidavit in reply through Shri S.S.Patil, Registrar [Legal], High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay. The learned counsel Shri Dhorde appearing for the respondent on 4 wp7790-09.odt instructions submits that in the facts of the case, reasonable opportunity, by issuing notice as contemplated in the relevant Rules of Maharashtra Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1979, would be provided to the petitioner and after complying with the procedure prescribed in law, if it is found necessary, then further departmental action will be initiated in accordance with law. 5] In the facts of the case and in view of providing fair opportunity to the petitioner, we find it appropriate to quash and set aside Clause [2] of the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain observations made in the order would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 7] The Disciplinary authority is entitled to consider the matter afresh in the light of the record placed before this Court and take decision in accordance with statements made before this Court 5 wp7790-09.odt through learned counsel Shri Dhorde, without being influenced by the observations made in respect of the petitioner. 8] Rule is made absolute in above terms. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp7790-09