Town Planning Maharashtra and Anr Vs. Bhalchandra Vasantrao Kulkarni
 Insc 386 (10
Pasayat & Altamas Kabir Arijit Pasayat, J.
in this appeal is to legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant, thereby upholding the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the
controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
respondent was working as a Peon in the establishment of Director, Town
Planning, Akola. An order of termination was passed
taking note of several acts of mis- conduct by the respondent. The order of
termination was passed dispensing with inquiry in terms of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). In the order
dated 7.5.1986 fifteen charges of misconduct were referred to. The Deputy
Director of Town Planning, Amravati,
Division Amravati, passed the order indicating therein that the various acts of
the respondent clearly demonstrated his unsuitability and the reasons as to why
it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as is referred to in
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, dispensing with the
inquiry the concerned authority decided to terminate him from service after
giving him one month's salary instead of one month's notice. It was noted that
he was in police custody from 30.4.1986 to 8.5.1986. All the employees of the
office were terrified due to his horrible acts and possibility his resorting to
tumult and terrify members of the staff after release from police custody
cannot be ruled out and suspension would not be an effective means to check his
of the order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition before
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. After creation of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to
only ground taken by respondent before the Tribunal in support of the petition
was that the reasons for dispensing with departmental inquiry were not recorded
prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 7.5.1986 and, in fact, it had
been recorded after the passing of the impugned order.
Tribunal accepted this plea referring to the original file which was produced
and the title of the order. The Tribunal observed that initially it was
recorded as "Sheet showing reasons for removal of Shri B. Kulkarni"
which was subsequently corrected as "Sheet showing reasons for removal of Shri
B. Kulkarni, peon".
to the Tribunal this change appears to have been made to show that it was
recorded prior to passing of the order, but it was apparent that the same was
corrected subsequently. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside.
The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed by
the Division Bench holding that the Tribunal's view was correct.
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare
reading of the entire order dated 7.5.1986 clearly shows that the reasons were
recorded prior to the passing of the order. According to him even purported
change on which great emphasis was laid by the Tribunal did not in any manner
justify a different conclusion.
pointed out that the reasons recorded have not been found inadequate by the
Tribunal. The finding that the subsequent correction was made is without any
basis and foundation.
counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the English
translation as given does not reflect the correct position and the original
order which was in a Marathi language has been referred to by the Tribunal to
conclude that change was subsequently made to make it appear as if the reasons
were recorded earlier.
view expressed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is clearly
unsustainable for the simple reason that as is rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the alleged change is inconsequential. A reading of
the entire order makes the position crystal clear that the reasons were
recorded before the order was passed. A few portions of the order would make
the position clear beyond a shadow of doubt. Two illustrations would suffice.
The English translation which is undisputed and is accepted to be correct reads
am fully satisfied about this and as regional competent officer I decide to
terminate him from service"... "An order to that effect is being
issued." Above being the position, the order of the Tribunal as well as
the impugned order of the High Court deserve to be set aside, and we direct
appeal is allowed. No costs.