IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2310 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2310 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2310 OF 2007 Appasaheb Chavan, ) R/o Nehrunagar Bldg. ) No.118, Room No.3657, ) Beside Nehrunagar P.S., ) Kurla (East), Mumbai - 24 )...Petitioner V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra ) through, the Addl.Commissioner ) of Police, ) Armed Police Head Quarter, ) Naigaon, Mumbai. ) ) 2. The Enquiry Officer and ) Asst.Comm. of Police ) (Training), Mr.O.B. Jediya, ) Naigaon, Mumbai. ) ) 3. The Preliminary Enquiry Officer ) & the then Asst. Commissioner ) of Police, Colaba Div. ) Mumbai, Mr.Rathod ) ) 4. Udaysinh Gaikwar, ) Senior P.I., Colaba P.S. Mumbai. ) ) 5. The Commissioner of Police, ) Mumbai. )...Respondents Petitioner-in-person. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. Date of reserving the judgment : Date of reserving the judgment : Date of reserving the judgment : 12th June, 2008 12th June, 2008 12th June, 2008 Date of pronouncing the judgment: 26th June,2008 Date of pronouncing the judgment: 26th June,2008 Date of pronouncing the judgment: 26th June,2008 - 2 - ORAL JUDGMENT (Per ORAL JUDGMENT (Per ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M. KANADE, J.) :- V.M. KANADE, J.) :- V.M. KANADE, J.) :- 1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :- a) This Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to, call the Record of the Proceedings. b) This Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to, grant the ad-interim relief, by issuing order, to the respondent no.1, to stay the further part of the proceedings; till the pendency of this Writ Petition. c) This Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to, quash the Departmental Proceedings, against the petitioner; by issuing appropriate Writ/s / order/s / direction/s. - 3 - d) This Hon’ble Court, may also be pleased to, reinstate the Petitioner, if the said Transfer of the petitioner is a penalty; at Colaba Police Station. e) Also, this Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to, initiate the Departmental enquiry, against the respondent no.2, for violation of the, executive order of the Govt. of India in respect of the leave to be granted to a delinquent to prepare the statement of the defence and his act of conferring undue favour on the complainant Mrs.Surekha U. Kasle resident of Latur, to insist her appear for the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and guide her about the deposition in adverse and against the petitioner, not then acting as a Judge. Also, the enquiry officer has violated Principles of natural Justice, for several times. - 4 - f) This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of this petition, to the petitioner. g) Further, this Hon’ble Court, may be pleased to pass any such orders, in the favour of the petitioner, which it may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice & equity." . Brief facts in nutshell are as under :- 3. The petitioner is an Assistant Police Inspector and was attached to Colaba Police Station. At present, the petitioner is attached to "L" Division, Armed Police Head Quarter at Naigaon. Pursuant to directions which were given to the DCP Zone I, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Colaba Division, conducted a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and submitted a report on 17.10.2006 wherein the ACP, Colaba, recommended departmental enquiry against the petitioner. - 5 - Accordingly, Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold departmental enquiry and departmental enquiry was initiated after the chargesheet was served on the petitioner herein. The departmental enquiry was completed on 30th August, 2007 and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges which were levelled against him were proved and recommended that the pay of the petitioner should be reduced to a lower scale of basic pay in time scale for a period of five years. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Police dated 11th September, 2007 as to why a punishment of stoppage of yearly increments of three years should not be imposed on the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging his transfer from Colaba Police Station to Naigaon Armed Police Head Quarter. He is also challenging the departmental enquiry which is initiated against him. 4. In the affidavit-in-reply which is filed by the respondents, it is stated that after the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 11th September, - 6 - 2007, further orders have not been passed since in the meantime, the petitioner chose to file the present petition. 5. The petitioner who is appearing in person made various allegations which are malafide against the Enquiry Officer and the other respondents. He has also alleged that he had a bias against him. He has also submitted that the penalty which is sought to be imposed against him is very harsh. 6. In our view, the submission made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In our view, the petition is filed prematurely since no penalty so far has been imposed upon the petitioner and only a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner asking him to give his explanation as to why punishment of stoppage of yearly increments of three years should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner also has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the order, if any, of punishment which is passed against him and in appeal, he can take all the grounds which are taken in - 7 - the petition. 7. In the result, there is no merit in the submission made by the petitioner who is appearing in person. 8. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, if any adverse order is passed against him. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.