1 W.P.No.5222.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5222 OF 2008 Dr. Mohammad Mohammad Yakub Ansari, Age 59 years, Occup. Retired. Permanent R/o 397, Mhada Plot, Malegaon. Tq. Malegaon, District Nashik. .PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Health Department, Manatralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Director, Health Services, Directorate of Health Services, Maharashtra State, Arogya Bhavan, St. Georges Compound, Mumbai. 3] The Deputy Director, Health Services, Nashik Region, New Civil Hospital Compound, Nashik. 4] The Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Deputy Director of Health Services, Nashik Circle New Civil Hospital Compound Nashik. 5] The Civil Surgeon,Civil Hospital,Dhule, Dist.Dhule. .RESPONDENTS. 2 W.P.No.5222.08 ... Shri.N.B.Suryawanshi,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PATIL, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard and finally decided at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioner had filed Original Application No. 349 of 2008, before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad claiming to quash and set aside the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings initiated against him and other reliefs. By an order dated 13th June, 2008, the learned Single Judge/Vice Chairman (J), finally disposed of Original Application No. 349 of 2008. The petitioner challenges the said 3 W.P.No.5222.08 impugned order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 jurisdiction of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Tribunal could be determined by the Chairman of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by an order dated 17-18/06/2003 amended order in existing rules and added new subjects to the jurisdiction of single Division Member Benches of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and its benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. 4. The learned counsel further submits that under allocation of subjects of Single and Division Benches, subject concerning Departmental Enquiry-punishment is assigned to the Division Bench. The relevant documents are placed on record by the learned counsel in support of his 4 W.P.No.5222.08 contention. It was submitted that the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge is without jurisdiction. The counsel further submits that, Original Civil Application circulated on 13.06.2008 for orders and the matter was finally decided without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter. The learned counsel submits that petitioner was not aware as to whether the Court was going to decide the matter finally at that stage. The petitioner was prejudiced on this count. The learned counsel submits that in the interest of justice and fairness, appropriate opportunity to the petitioner needs to be given by the competent forum. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1833(1) and P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.,T.N. Housing Board reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 207. 5 W.P.No.5222.08 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed affidavit- in-reply. 6. Mr. Dighe, learned A.G.P submits that Tribunal has considered in detail the issues raised by the petitioner on merits and dealt with the matter in accordance with Law, and therefore, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The learned A.G.P. further submits that in the light of the charges, which are grave in nature, no interference is called for. 7. We have perused the provisions of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The list of allocation of subjects of the Single and Division Benches is also placed on record. We have perused the same. The issue in respect of Departmental Enquiry-punishment lies to the Division Bench. The Chairman of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal exercises powers under section 5 sub-section 6 for allotment of subject to the respective jurisdiction of the Single and 6 W.P.No.5222.08 Division Benches. 8. In the facts of the case, the petitioner submits that he is prejudiced, as matter was decided finally on the first date itself. The application was not moved for final disposal. The petitioner could not get appropriate opportunity to canvass his case before the Court in detail. 9. We find substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. At this stage, we are not addressing the issue as to whether Departmental enquiry could have proceeded against the petitioner or not, though petitioner got retired in the year 2007. In view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and allotment of the subjects to the Single and Division Benches by the Chairman, we are of the opinion that Original Application No. 349 of 2008 had to be dealt with by the Division Bench. In the facts of the case the petitioner is required to be provided with a fresh opportunity to put up his 7 W.P.No.5222.08 case. 10. For the reasons stated above, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order, dated 13th June, 2008 passed by Vice Chairman (J), Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. The matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad. Original Application No. 349 of 2008 shall be decided by a Division Bench, in accordance with the allotment of subjects by the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 11. We direct the Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application No. 349 of 2008, finally within six months from the date of receipt of this order. We do not express any opinion on merits of the case. All issues are kept open. The petitioner shall co-operate with Tribunal in final disposal of Original Application. In absence thereof the Tribunal is entitled to deal with matter 8 W.P.No.5222.08 accordingly. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 13. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for four weeks from today. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK