1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LDG.) NO. 580 OF 2009 Shri Rupesh Vasudeo Pandit .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council and Another .. Respondents. --- Ms. Sonal i/by M/s. F.F. Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. M. R. Jhakde for the Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JULY , 2009 P.C. : 1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11th September, 2008 issued by Respondent No.2. This order was made by the Secretary, State of Maharashtra on hearing an Appeal preferred by the present petitioner under the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Act,1948. It may be noticed here that the Appellate Authority had also dealt with the Appeal 2 preferred by the petitioner by its earlier order dated 18th October, 2007, which was directed against the order dated 14th of March, 2005 by which the name of the petitioner was permanently removed from the Register of Registered Pharmacists. That was a detailed order passed by the Appellate Authority. However, when the correctness thereof was questioned, the matter was remanded. 2. A challenge as is normally raised is on the ground that the Article of the Charges framed by the Respondent No.1 Council against the petitioner are not supported with cogent evidence and the findings are based upon conjectures. Moreover, it is argued that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11th September, 2008 is not a reasoned order and does not consider various contentions which had been raised by the petitioner before that court. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Pharmacy Council has argued that the charges have been proved and in fact there is a confessional statement of the Petitioner dated 21.02.2006, wherein the Petitioner has practically conceded to the most serious act of 3 commission and omission with which he has been charged. It is contended that the complainants were induced by the petitioner and from whom he had taken undue advantage because they were in need of employment. The Petitioner amongst others is charged of having caused mental and financial torture to the other Pharmacists; which has been proved and that is fully justifying the punishment that has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the competent Authority. 2. We may notice that the Council had initially removed the name of the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority on a sympathetic consideration has reduced the punishment and fixed the period of five years during which his name shall stand suspended and the petitioner has been restrained from taking any benefit under the Registered Pharmacist Certificate issued to him by the Council. We have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner’s charge in relation to the inducement and seeking undue advantage from others is of a serious consequence. But at the same time, the fact of the matter is that the piece of evidence to establish this charge, in particular, 4 the confessional statement of the petitioner, relied upon before us was neither produced before the Authority concerned nor the same was provided to the petitioner. In our opinion, the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the allegations made in the charge alleged to have been substantiated by the confessional statement. The petitioner is entitled to have an opportunity to explain his conduct in order to meet with the confessional statement, alleged to have been made by the petitioner. We may notice that the counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the said statement is signed by the petitioner, however, it is the case of the petitioner that it was signed under mistaken belief that the same was the proceedings of the day. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, explaining the circumstances in this regard. We do not consider it necessary to go into merits or otherwise of this contention. 3. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and we set aside order dated 11th September, 5 2008 and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for hearing the appeal of the petitioner afresh and passing order thereon in accordance with law. We make it clear that the Council shall be free to rely upon the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner, as now the same has been brought to the notice of the petitioner and a copy thereof has already been furnished to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. We expect that the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. .....