Gajanan vs State of Maharashtra

B.R. Gavai, J.—This petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 19/02/1998 by which the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Collector, Akola dated 26/4/1993 came to be dismissed.

The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 01/6/1961. He came to be promoted as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 06/01/1982 and was granted first increment in the said cadre on 01/01/1983. On taking into consideration the performance of the petitioner, he was also granted one advance increment on 01/10/1986. The petitioner came to be transferred to entertainment department of respondent No.3 on 07/7/1987. It appears that on account of certain misappropriation of funds during the functioning of the petitioner in the entertainment department, he came to be suspended on 31/3/1988. Upon an enquiry conducted by respondent No.3, the petitioner was indicted with two punishments; (i) reversion to the cadre of Junior Clerk, and (ii) treating the suspension period as without salary. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Original Application, which came to be rejected. The appeal preferred to the State Government also rejected. The review petition also came to be rejected. However, another review filed by the petitioner came to be allowed vide order dated 07/7/1992. By this order, the punishment imposed on the petitioner came to be reduced by stoppage of the increment for one year without having cumulative effect on the future salary. It appears that there was some confusion in the office and as such clarification was sought from the State Government vide communication dated 03/10/1992. The State Government informed the Collector that the order of the State dated 07/7/1992 would come into effect from the date on which it was served upon the petitioner. It is further informed that there would be no change insofar as the order which direct regularization of suspension period of the petitioner.

Upon receipt of the clarification from the State Government, respondent No.2 -Collector passed an order on 26/4/1993 by which respondent No.3 was directed that the petitioner shall be given seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 23/7/1992. It has further been directed to respondent No.3 that the petitioner would not be entitled for recovery of any arrears. It has been further directed that the petitioner''s one year''s increment due on 01/7/1993 shall be stopped without having cumulative effect on the salary payable to the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the Original Application and being aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

Heard Shri Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Dangre, learned Government Pleader for the State.

Shri Pathak, learned Counsel submitted that since the penalty imposed by the Collector was reduced by the State Government, the Collector was bound to give full effect to the said order. He submits that vide the impugned order, the Collector has imposed penalty, which has not been found in the order passed by the State Government.

Smt. Dangre, learned Government Pleader, on the contrary, submitted that the learned Tribunal entertained the orders passed by the State Government and the Collector, which require no interference.

Undisputedly, the respondent -Collector is bound to give full effect to the orders passed by the State Government. The penalty imposed by respondent No.3 was of reversion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk and treating the suspension period as a period without salary. However, in review, the punishment has been reduced to stoppage of one year''s increment without having the cumulative effect on future salary. The net effect of the order passed by the State Government would be that the reversion as directed by the Collector has been wiped out and the order of treating suspension as a period without salary has also been wiped out. As such, the order of reversion would cease to have any effect and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was entitled to restoration of status quo ante as on 31/3/1988, i.e. the date on which the petitioner came to be suspended. The further effect of the order of the State Government would be stoppage of one increment due to the petitioner in the year 1993. In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 was justified in withholding the increment for one year, which was due to the petitioner on 01/7/1993 without having cumulative effect on the salary. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Orders dated 19/02/1998 and 26/4/1993, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Collector, Akola respectively, are quashed and set aside except the part of the order, which directs withholding of increment of the petitioner due on 01/7/1993 for one year, without having any cumulative effect on the future salary of the petitioner.

It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of the status quo ante as on 31/3/1988 and he would regain his seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk as was available to him on 31/3/1988.

Needless to state that the petitioner would be entitled to get all consequential benefits in terms of what has been held above including the arrears of salary and pensionary benefits, etc. along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of six months from today.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.