1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2001 Dhananjay S/o Bhalchandra Abhyankar, Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Government Servant, R/o Plot No. 7A, Moden Cooperative Housing Society, Chatrapati Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur. .. .. PETITIONER Versus 1. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, through The Chairman Justice Shri S. D. Pandit. 2. Ajeet S/o Baburao Pawar, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Government Servant, R/o Bhakti Niwas Campus, Shri Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi, District Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 5. Shri Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi, through its President, Tahsil Rahta, Dist. Ahmednagar .. .. RESPONDENTS 2 Shri S. V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 Formal party. Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 - absent. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 3 and 4. Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate h/f Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 04TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. The petitioner herein was a Judicial Officer at the relevant point of time, holding the post of Joint Charity Commissioner at Nagpur and in addition holding the charge of the post of Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks expunging of remarks made by the Chairman of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad bench in paragraph 26 of its judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2001 in Original Application No. 819 of 2000. 02. The present petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by name, however was joined as respondent No. 4 and designated as Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The original application was filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by one Ajit Pawar, who was Government Servant and was acting as Executive Officer of Shri Sai Baba 3 Sansthan, Shirdi. The applicant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had challenged an order passed by the State Government and the Charity Commissioner dated 19.10.2000, calling upon the applicant to hand over the charge of said post of Executive Officer to the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar and to assume the charge of Office of Deputy Collector and Revenue Collector Nagpur at Nagpur. While dealing with the said matter the impugned observations are made in para 26 of the order, for expunging of which this petition has been filed. 03. The main ground of attack to the observations made in para 26 is that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner of being heard in the matter touching the offending remarks made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court reported in 1996 AIR SCW 4046. In the said judgment the Apex Court has clearly held that before making serious aspersion condemning a person he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. The remarks made in para 26 are very serious in nature and are bound to adversely affect the service career of the petitioner who happens to be a Judicial Officer. The remarks made in para 26 adversely affect the character and reputation of the petitioner and brands him as a person who dances to the tuns of politicians. To demonstrate the gravity of the remarks and observations we choose to reproduce para 26 : "26. Before passing final order in this application I would like to observe that conduct of the respondent No. 4 Charity Commissioner in this case is not at all benefiting to his post. It seems that learned 4 Charity Commissioner has not at all taken into consideration his position. The respondent No. 4 Charity Commissioner is a statutory authority. He is governed by the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. He cannot dance to the tune of the Tune of the Govt. or politicians. The learned Charity Commissioner has stated in his affidavit in reply that as there were directions to him to repatriate the petitioner, he has repatriated the present applicant. The said conduct of the respondent No. 4 Charity Commissioner be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. If the order is seen then it is quite clear that respondent No. 4 has received the Govt's. order on 19.10.2000 at Exh. F page 52. If the said Exh. F is seen it would be quite clear that Govt. has stated that Law Secretary should write to Charity Commissioner to issue the of repatriation of the petitioner. The order which the Charity Commissioner has issued is of the very same date on which the Govt. has issued the said order. There is no reference that he has received any request or directions from the Law Secretary. In the col. of reference there is no reference of the order of Law Secretary. Therefore in the circumstances I have said earlier that he is trying to dance to the tune of politicians. The learned Charity Commissioner also did not see the file of the Trust in question. Had he seen the file then he would have come to know, that earlier there was a order of withdrawal of the present applicant and his predecessor had written a strong letter to the govt. objecting it's action of repatriation in violation of scheme of the Trust. He ought to have made inquiries as to why in the midterm the petitioner was repatriated and govt. was asking his repatriation. Therefore, in the circumstances, the respondent no. 4 Charity Commissioner who is holding the present charge of the post seems to please the Govt. and by every his role of Judicial Officer and, therefore, I think that his conduct be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court so as to enable His Lordship to take appropriate action against the said Charity Commissioner." 5 04. It is undisputed that no opportunity was made available to the petitioner touching the remarks to be found in para 26 of the order. Without offering an opportunity of hearing, the remarks to be found in para 26 cannot be permitted to sustain. As we are of the view that the observations made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in para 26 are made in breach of Principles of Natural Justice, remarks need to be expunged. It is also brought to our notice that by order dated 30th April, 2001, by granting ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause B, the remarks against the petitioner in para 26 were stayed during pendency of this petition and thus did not act detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. We are also of the view that for deciding the controversy in the original application it was not necessary to deal with the conduct of the petitioner. Hence Writ Petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010