{1} wp449797.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4497 OF 1997 Chandrakant s/o Tukaram Gaikwad, aged 36 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Hingoli, District Parbhani. Petitioner Versus 1 State of Maharashtra; 2 Hon’ble District Judge, Nanded. 3 Hon’ble Registrar, High Court of Judicature of Bombay. 4 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Beed. Respondents Ms.B.E.Nalawade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P.More, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 24 th Janruary, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 Heard arguments advanced by Ms.B.E.Nalawade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.More, learned A.G.P. {2} wp449797.odt for respondents. 2 The petitioner, who was serving as a watchman, at the relevant time, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Biloli, is challenging the order of dismissal from service, issued by District Judge, Nanded, on 02.03.1996. 3 The petitioner was appointed as a Peon-cum- Watchman by the District Judge, Nanded, on 01.09.1992. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 1995, he was posted as a Watchman in the Court of Additional District Judge, Biloli. The Additional District Judge, during his inspection, found the petitioner absent from duty on 09.07.1995, 30.07.1995, 13.08.1995, 04.09.1995 and 10.09.1995, during night hours. As such, explanation of the petitioner was called. The explanation of the petitioner was not found to be convincing, as such, charge sheet came to be issued against him. The charge framed against petitioner was in respect of his continued absentism. The petitioner was placed under suspension. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Degloor, was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 17.10.1995 in Departmental Enquiry No.4/1995. Along with order of enquiry, article of charges and substance of accusations were drawn and furnished to the employee with list of witnesses and list of copies of of the documents relied upon. The petitioner tendered his explanation to the charges. After examining the witnesses and on {3} wp449797.odt consideration of defence of the delinquent employee / petitioner herein, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the District Judge, The copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner and his explanation was called. He tendered his objections on 12.02.1996. After considering the report of inquiry and on consideration of the objections raised by petitioner, the competent authority i.e. District Judge directed imposition of punishment of dismissal from service against the employee / petitioner herein. In pursuant to the decision by the competent authority, order of dismissal, drawn on 02.03.1996, was served on the petitioner and he has been dismissed from service. 4 The petitioner tendered a representation to the High Court, through proper channel, which has also been turned down. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the delinquent employee was found absent on the given dates only for short durations. He had gone to purchase medicines and as such he has explained his absence at the relevant time. It is contended that imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate with the alleged misconduct and as such, order of dismissal passed by the District Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also urged that lenient view may be taken in the matter and a lesser punishment be imposed. {4} wp449797.odt 6 We have perused the statement of allegations, inquiry report and the order passed by the District Judge, so also explanation tendered by the petitioner during the course of inquiry. The allegation levelled against the petitioner, in respect of his absentism during night hours on 09.07.1995, 30.07.1995, 13.08.1995, 04.09.1995 and 10.09.1995, is of a quite serious nature. The petitioner was entrusted with the duties of watchman and he was not found in the Court premises not only once but on five occasions. It cannot be merely a coincident that whenever the Additional District Judge paid visits, the petitioner was found absent. The petitioner has not denied the fact of his absentism on all the five occasions, however, has urged the disciplinary authority to take a lenient view in the matter. 7 We have also perused the explanation / reply tendered by the petitioner to the notices dated 09.07.1995, 30.07.1995 and 04.09.1995. In his explanation to the notice dated 09.07.1995, it is stated by the petitioner that on the relevant day, he had accompanied his guest to residence and as such, he was not on duty and he returned back bit a late. The petitioner has prayed for pardon and has assured not to repeat the mistake. In reply to the notice dated 30.07.1995, he has stated that his daughter was indisposed since 27.09.1995 and that he is also required to pay attention to household matters, as such, he was absent on the {5} wp449797.odt relevant day. He also prayed for pardoning him for the lapse committed by him. In reply to notice dated 04.09.1995, he has stated that as he was suffering from cold and cough, he had been away from his duty to bring vicks lotion. The explanation tendered by the petitioner was found to be unacceptable by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority. 8 The petitioner has also raised objection in respect of paying visits by the Additional District Judge, who had proceeded on leave on the relevant dates. It cannot be said that a Judicial Officer, who has proceeded on leave, cannot verify as to whether the watchman is on duty or not. The objection raised by the petitioner is without any substance. 9 The petitioner has contended that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate with the charge levelled against him. The petitioner was serving as a watchman and a watchman is expected to remain present in the Court premises i.e. at the place of duty. The petitioner was found absent not only once, but on five occasions whenever the Additional District Judge paid visit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. {6} wp449797.odt 10 Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Badrinarayan s/o Devilal Bhangdiya Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (Writ Petition No.4469 of 1998 decided on 30th July, 2010). In Badrinarayan’s matter, the Division Bench has found that the charge was in respect of insubordination on some occasions and another charge was regarding making representation to the higher officials. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Prabha D. Kumari, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 103, the Division Bench of this Court found that the punishment imposed, that is removal from service, is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the employee. However, in the instant matter, allegations against the petitioner, who was employed as a watchman, are in respect of his absentism from duty on number of occasions. He was found absent without seeking prior permission on all five occasions. The petitioner was posted to guard the Court premises during night hours and was found away from his duty on five occasions whenever the Additional District Judge had paid visit. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. 11 In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in this petition. Petition is devoid of substance. {7} wp449797.odt 12 Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE D.B.BHOSALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp449797