1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9602/2007 Anil @ Gangadhar s/o Hiralal Sonekar Age about 42 yrs.Occ.Nil , R/o Indira Gandhi Ward,Chandani Square, Bhandara Petitioner Vs. 1]The Registrar General,Bombay Respondents High Court. 2]The District & Sessions Judge,Bhandara Mr.Shashikant Borkar for Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar,AGP for respondents CORAM :V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 13th FEBRUARY,2009. J U D G M E N T :(Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . The Petitioner who was a Sweeper,Class-IV servant in the District Court,at Bhandara has challenged the order of his removal passed by the District Judge,Bhandara and subsequently confirmed by administrative side of the High Court. FACTUAL MATRIX 2] The petitioner joined his service as a sweeper,Class-IV servant on 17/10/1984 in the District Court,Bhandara.He was given 2 duty in the morning from 6 a.m.to 10 a.m. and after the Court hours from 18 .00 hrs. to 22.00 hrs.of cleaning the Court premises. He was also asked to do the duty of watchman and telephone attendant between 18.00 hrs. to 22.00 hrs..He,therefore,has made representation on 29/9/2004 to the Civil Judge, J.D. at Mohadi District Bhandara where he was posted as a sweeper that his evening duty hours are to be changed and he should not be given the work of watchman and telephone attendant . His representation was rejected on 5/10/2004 and he was directed to discharge his duty as earlier and also it was made clear in writing that he should not be under an impression that he is discharging the duty of watchman. The respondent found lapses in the performance of the duty of the petitioner in the month of November,2004 in the evening time. The District Judge, Bhandara served chargesheet on him on 16/3/2005.He was given an opportunity to give his say and defend him ,however,the enquiry officer held him guilty and his services were terminated with effect from 15/2/2006.He preferred an Administrative Appeal in the High Court and the High Court dismissed his appeal by an order dated 17/3/2007.Hence this Writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 3] Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has erred in passing the order of termination of the service of the petitioner. The respondent should have appreciated 3 the representation made by the petitioner on 29/9/2004 for the change of his working hours. He has specifically mentioned that during 18 hours to 22 hrs. the Courts are closed and the sweeping is supposed to be done in the morning . A prayer was made for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Judge,Bhandara on 14/2/2006 in Departmental Enquiry no 3/2005. 4] Learned A.G.P.appearing for the respondents has rightly submitted that the Courts are not closed after 6 p.m.for sweeping and cleaning purposes . He has drawn our attention to the order passed by the administration on 5/10/2004 in response to the representation for the change of working hours.The Court authority has specifically stated and informed him that cleaning and sweeping is done in the morning between 6 a.m.to 10 a.m. so also thereafter no much work of cleaning is left .So the petitioner was given duty between 18.00 hrs.to 22.00 hrs.to do the work of cleaning and also to keep watch and attend the phone calls . Learned A.G.P.submitted that the administration did not direct the petitioner to do over time but the working hours were adjusted as per the exigency and suitability of the services . R E A S O N S 5] The Court premises is always open for cleaning and sweeping after the court hours ,on the contrary sweeper can perform his duty quietly without disturbing the litigants and public. It is 4 pertinent to note that he was doing his duty four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening which in total comes not more than eight hours. To attend phone calls and to be alert and keep watch during duty hours is minimum requirement of job and it cannot be said as addition to his duty. On the contrary it is a right way of management to use the available human resources in the system. There is no substance in the grievance of the petitioner and the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge/Disciplinary Authority dated 14/2/2006 is passed on sound reasoning. In the result the petition is dismissed. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.)