1 W.P.No. 950 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.950 OF 2008 Shrikant s/o Khanderao Nighavekar ..PETITIONER VERSUS The High Court of Judicature of Bombay & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr D.R. Kale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.3 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2011 PER COURT : The petitioner was in service as a Chobdar in this Court. A charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner. A Departmental Enquiry was held against him and on 16.9.1998 he was removed from service. An administrative appeal was preferred by him which was dismissed on 10.5.1999. Aggrieved by that decision the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4880 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority with a direction that a personal hearing be afforded 2 W.P.No. 950 of 2008 to the petitioner and appropriate orders be passed thereafter. This petition was disposed of on 23.10.2002. 2. The appellate authority, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner again filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No.5218 of 2003 on 8.12.2003. At the same time the petitioner preferred a representation through respondent no.2 to the Honourable the Chief Justice contending that he should be granted compassionate pension in terms of the provisions of Rule 101 (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The then Honourable Acting Chief Justice passed an order on 6.2.2004 allowing the representation of the petitioner. An order directing payment of 2/3rd of the pension was passed. In view of the order being passed, the petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No.5218 of 2003 on 15.6.2004. 3. It appears, however, that the petitioner had not disclosed in his representation that a second charge-sheet had been issued to him before the order dated 6.2.2004 was passed. The charge in the second charge-sheet was that the petitioner had issued a fabricated appointment order to a person and had extracted an amount of Rs.40,000/- from him as consideration for appointment in the services of the High Court. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report dated 23.3.1999 was furnished to the petitioner with a notice directing him to show cause as to 3 W.P.No. 950 of 2008 why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to that notice. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed order on 18.10.1999 indicating that since the petitioner had already been removed from service, there was no propriety in passing an order of dismissal again. Moreover, Writ Petition No.4880 of 1999 was pending at that time before this Court. 4. It appears that after the order dated 6.2.2004 was passed by the then Honourable Acting Chief Justice, it was brought to his notice that there was a second enquiry held against the petitioner which had not been disclosed by him and that he was found guilty in that enquiry. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 17.6.2006 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the order dated 6.2.2004 granting compassionate pension should not be revoked. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 24.6.2006. 5. After taking into consideration all the circumstances in the present case, including the fact that an order granting compassionate pension had been passed, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before suspending this order, his reply and the order suspending the grant of compassionate pension, the Honourable the Chief Justice passed an order revoking the order directing payment of compassionate pension. Besides these documents, the Honourable the Chief Justice was also informed that the petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal 4 W.P.No. 950 of 2008 charges levelled against him under section 420, 467, 471 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that the petitioner had been found guilty in a Departmental Enquiry based on the same set of facts. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and in our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order, which is impugned in the present petition. The order granting compassionate pension was passed in the light of the provisions of rule 101 (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Under Rule 27 of the said Rules, the Government is empowered to withhold or withdraw pension or any part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after the retirement. 7. The revocation of pension has obviously been ordered in exercise of the powers vested under rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 8. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that once the petitioner had been dismissed, the second Departmental Enquiry could not have been held and no order consequent upon such Departmental Enquiry could have been passed as the employer - 5 W.P.No. 950 of 2008 employee relationship had been terminated. It is true that the employer - employee relationship ceases immediately on an order of dismissal being passed. However, in the present case the Departmental Enquiry had been initiated when the petitioner was still in service and it was taken to its logical conclusion as permissible under the Rules. When it was found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had been found guilty in a Departmental Enquiry for the second time, the Honourable the Chief Justice has revoked the order. In our opinion, there is no need to interfere in the matter. Petition rejected. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/wp950.08