1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1347 OF 2001 1.State of Maharashtra through the Secretary (Shri Navinkumar), General Administration Department And Sainik Kalyan (Desk-28) Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 2.Shri Bhagatsingh Desshmukh Director, Department of Sainik Welfare, Council Hall, Maharashtra State, Pune-411001 ...Petitioners Vs. Shri Ramdas K. Desai Stenographer, Department of Sainik Welfare, Maharashtra State, Govt. Bungalow No.9, Shashtri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune-411006. ...Respondent Mr.N.P.Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 23RD JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) 1.This Petition under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary General, Administration Department challenging the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.782 of 1994 on 14th June, 2000, Review Application No.31 of 2000 passed on 23rd August, 2000 and Contempt Application No.105 of 2000 passed on 9th February, 2001. 2.The Respondent came to be appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 1st July, 1981, in the office of the Director, Maharashtra Rajya Sainik Board, Pune. He came to be posted to the post of Stenographer on 16th April, 1984. In the year 1985 he was deputed to the Industrial Training Institute for further training as Stenographer and he obtained the said training and completed in the year 1986. However, by an order dated 24th August, 1993 he was reverted to his original post of Clerk-cum-Typist. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30th August, 1999. He, therefore, approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.784 of 1994. After hearing the parties and considering the pleadings, the Tribunal by its order dated 14th 3 June, 2000 set aside the order of reversion dated 24th August, 1993 and allowed the Original Application. The said order passed by the Tribunal (D.B.) reads as under:- ORDER: Heard. Petitioner was promoted as Stenographer (L.G.) from 16-4-1984, having earlier worked as a Typist. Admittedly he acquired the qualification needed for the Stenographer in 1986. Subsequently, on receiving an anonymous complaint, the petitioner has been reverted as a Typist by an order dated 24-8-1993 on the ground that he got his promotion as Stenographer in 1984 by making if appeal falsely that he was qualified. Ms. Manchekar for the State states that a D.E that was proposed to be started against the petitioner as per the impugned order has since been dropped. The impugned order is exfacie stigmatic and issued without following the proper procedure. The order is therefore hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the Respondents to treat the petitioner as not having been reverted as per the impugned order. The Respondents will however 4 be free to re-fix the petitioner s salary and allowances as Stenographer treating him as having been promoted on the date on which he acquired the necessary qualification. No recovery need be made for any excess payment made earlier. These directions should be carried out within two months. No order on costs. Sd/-xxx (S.Ramamoorthi) VICE-CHAIRMAN Sd/-xxx (A.R.Vazalwar) Dated this 14th day of June 2000. MEMBER-J 3.The present petitioners filed Review Application No.31 of 2000 but beyond limitations and hence, Misc. Application No. 273 of 2000 was filed for condonation of delay. By a common order dated 23rd August, 2000 the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Review Application. The Tribunal clarified that in its earlier order dated 14th June, 2000, the impugned order dated 24th August, 1993 was set aside as it was stigmatic in nature and no other aspects were considered. This clarification implied that the issues 5 regarding the qualifications of the respondent, his eligibility for the post of Stenographer and other requirements for appointment to the said post were not taken into consideration. Despite the Review Application being dismissed, the order dated 16th September, 2000 came to be passed by the Director, Sainik Welfare Department by which the reversion of the respondent to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 24th August, 1993 was directed. The respondent, therefore, filed Contempt Application No.105 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the same came to be disposed off on 9th February, 2001. 4.The Tribunal held that the present petitioners were not guilty of contempt and again reiterated that O.A.No.782 of 1994 was allowed solely on the ground that the reversion order, impugned therein, was stigmatic and it was passed without following the recruitment procedure under the Service Rules. All these orders are challenged in this Petition. 5.The Tribunal repeatedly clarified that O.A.No. 782 of 1994 was allowed only for the reasons 6 that the order of reversion passed and challenged therein did not meet the requirements of the law. From 1986 to 1993 i.e. for 7 years the respondent continued in the post of Stenographer and one fine day the order of reversion was issued and that too without any show-cause notice. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing before the Tribunal on 14th June, 2000 had made a statement that the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent was dropped and thus no departmental inquiry remained against the respondent. After the order dated 14th June, 2000 was passed, there was no embargo on the powers of the petitioners to issue a fresh show-cause notice to initiate a de-novo inquiry after the authorities were satisfied that the respondent did not possess the qualifications for appointment as a Stenographer. This would have provided an opportunity to the respondent to put up his case before the authorities and thereafter, they were free to pass an appropriate order. Even on conclusion of the departmental inquiry the authorities were not prevented from any further decision to either revert the respondent or to punish him in any manner. 7 Instead of resorting to these requirements in law and in keeping with the natural justice, the authorities proceeded to pass the order on 16th September, 2000 reiterating the decision to revert the respondent to the post of Clerk- cum-Typist on the ground that he did not fulfill the requirements prescribed for the post of Stenographer and that he did not produce the documents. Even in the order dated 9th February, 2001 passed by the Tribunal the eligibility issue of the respondent was considered, but the Tribunal did not record its opinion regarding eligibility of the respondent and rightly so, having regard to the limited powers while deciding a Contempt Application. 6.We are satisfied that the order dated 24th August, 1993 by which the respondent came to be reverted was rightly set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 14th June, 2000 and no interference is called for, in the said order. The subsequent orders in the Review Application and Contempt Application are only clarificatory in true sense and they not indeed adjudicated the qualification required for the post of Stenographer. Undoubtedly the 8 order dated 24th August, 1993 was not only stigmatic, but indeed it was against the principles of natural justice and having worked in the post of Stenographer for seven years, he was reverted without offering any opportunity of hearing. 7.In the premise this Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 8.Interim order passed on 9th April, 2001 hereby stands vacated. 9.We clarify that this order or the orders impugned in this Petition do not prevent the petitioners in deciding the issue of the respondent s eligibility for the post of Stenographer as on 24th August, 1993, if the same still subsists. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]