Bombay High Court
Adv. Jaydev Yashwant Gangawane vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The … on 23 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:18556-DB
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
Digitally signed
ANANT by ANANT
KRISHNA NAIK
KRISHNA Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAIK 2025.04.24
19:26:37 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2914 OF 2019
Adv. Jaydev Yashwant Gangawane
R/at: Raj Tower, 'E' Wing,
U/3 Katraj, Pune-411046 .. Petitioner-in-person
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400032
2. The Commissioner of Police
Pune City, Pune .. Respondents
***
Mr. Jaydev Y. Gangawane, the Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader a/w. Mr. S. P. Kamble,
Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 -State
***
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd APRIL, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL, 2025
P.C.
1. Heard the Petitioner-in-person and the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the Respondents.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner is challenging the order dated 05/10/2018 passed by the
Page 1 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (“the Tribunal” for short) in
Original Application No. 99 of 2011 (“the said OA” for short). In the said
Original Application, the Petitioner had challenged the order dated
12/05/2000 dismissing the Petitioner’s Appeal filed challenging the order of
his removal dated 21/04/1998.
3. In order to understand the case of the Petitioner in a better and
complete manner, apart from hearing him, we have also perused the written
submissions made by him in the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioner in short
is that he was appointed as an unarmed police constable on 20/05/1983. He
was removed from services in April 1986 against which the Petitioner filed
Writ Petition No. 593 of 1989, which was allowed on 09/08/1989
reinstating the Petitioner with full benefits. He then filed Contempt Petition
No. 198 of 1989 in which an order was passed on 01/12/1989. According to
the Petitioner, this order dated 01/12/1989 entitled him to calculation of
seniority for the promotion. According to him, despite being appointed in
unarmed police force, he was transferred to armed section of the force, and
then his mental condition was disturbed but when he was in need of medical
help, instead of taking care of the Petitioner and offering him help, he was
dismissed from service on 21/04/1998 by the Government. The Petitioner
filed departmental appeal, however that was also dismissed on 12/05/2000.
Page 2 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
According to the Petitioner, he had secured first position in “law” during his
training at Regional Police Training School (RPTS) at Nagpur for which he
was felicitated. With him at that time, one Mr. Narendra Gaikwad had
secured second position and both of them had joined the services together.
However, Mr. Gaikwad has now reached the position of Additional
Superintendent of Police and therefore, as per Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India, equal opportunity in public employment be given to
the Petitioner also. It is submitted that even Mr. Gaikwad can be summoned
to the Court to verify the Petitioner’s case. On this case and submissions, the
Petitioner filed the said OA, which was dismissed by the impugned order. In
these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.
4. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Admin), Pune City has filed
affidavit in reply dated 19/08/2019, opposing the petition, inter alia stating
as under. That the Petitioner was removed pursuant to the decision taken by
the Disciplinary Authority after following due process of law and conducting
Departmental Enquiry, which decision is confirmed by the Appellate
Authority (Home Department of the State). That on and from 18/01/1993,
the Petitioner went on sick leave but failed to apply for such leave. Various
correspondences were made with the Petitioner calling upon him to join the
duty but Petitioner neither joined the duty nor followed procedure seeking
Page 3 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
leave. Therefore departmental enquiry was initiated. Charges were framed
and chargesheet was communicated to petitioner vide letter date
13/10/1997, asking him to remain present for enquiry. This
communication/letter was received by petitioner on 16/10/1997, however
he refused to accept it, stating that if enquiry is conducted it would be
vitiated. It is submitted that despite receipt of chargesheet, Petitioner has
opted to remain absent in the enquiry proceeding. It is specifically stated
that every attempt was made by the Respondent as well as the enquiry
officer to give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, however the
petitioner knowingly, willingly and deliberately opted to remain absent in
the enquiry proceeding.
5. The Petitioner-in-person argued before us that when he was mentally
disturbed and became a mental patient, it was incumbent upon the
Respondent-State to give him medical help. However, instead of helping the
Petitioner, he has been dismissed from service. He submitted that he was not
properly served with the show cause notice and the departmental enquiry
proceedings are illegal. He submitted that he is residing at a mercy of his
friend and is in a precarious condition. He contended that he belongs to the
backward class and justice must be done to him.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
Page 4 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
Respondent-State has supported the impugned order by referring to the
affidavit in reply. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the
aspects correctly.
7. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. It is seen that after the Petitioner was removed from service in 1998,
he has pursued his 5 year LL.B. course and passed the same. The Petitioner
has shown himself as an advocate in the cause title of the petition.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that after the Petitioner was
reinstated, he was transferred to Special Reserve Police, when he reported
sick and remained absent from duty continuously. The Petitioner was
charged for indiscipline and irresponsible behaviour. Notice was served upon
him on 16/10/1997. The Petitioner’s stand is that he was transferred from
unarmed division to armed division and his mental condition was disturbed,
and therefore he showed inability to face any departmental enquiry. His
stand is that it is illegal to conduct departmental enquiry until the transfer is
canceled. The Petitioner refused to accept documents. It is noted by the
Tribunal that the Petitioner has simply denied service of the order of removal
as well as show cause notice. However his acknowledgment under letter
dated 16/10/1997 is noted and it is further noted that the Petitioner has
given endorsement on letter that “his state of mind is not good and any
Page 5 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
enquiry conducted against him would be vitiated” The Tribunal has also
noted that on 21/10/1997, notice of hearing of enquiry was sent to the
Petitioner at his residence, when he refused to accept the same after reading
the charge. The Tribunal has categorically recorded that in the Petitioner’s
Appeal memo there is no ground taken that he was not served with the
charge-sheet. The Petitioner never appeared before the enquiry committee
and was ultimately removed. The Tribunal has also recorded that though the
Petitioner argued that he was admitted in hospital when the enquiry was
conducted, the dates of admission in hospital contradicts and falsifies his
version. We are also not shown any medical record of specific dates by the
Petitioner.
10. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that despite claiming that he
was mentally ill, the Petitioner has pursued LL.B. degree and successfully
completed it. The order passed by this Court in Petitioner’s contempt petition
indicates that it was clarified that ‘in case he qualifies for promotion’ then
appropriate seniority be considered. The Petitioner has not appeared and
attempted for departmental examination for Police Sub Inspector post,
which was his choice. The Tribunal has further observed that after becoming
Advocate and enrolling as such in 2004, the Petitioner is practicing law at
Pune. The Tribunal has also noted that the Petitioner challenged the order of
Page 6 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
May 2000 in September 2010 after span of 10 years, which indicates
acceptance of order of removal for a long time. Record shows that during
hearing of the said OA, the Petitioner had made allegations against the
presiding members as well as one of the then sitting Judge of this Court,
which is reproduced in the impugned order in paragraph no. 43. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal has rejected the said OA on
05/10/2018.
11. Record further shows that after the impugned order was passed, the
Petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of
this Court on 19/10/2018 making allegations against the presiding members
of the Tribunal demanding their narco-test. The said letter is on record at
page no. 94 of the petition. In fact, for the reason of Petitioner’s allegations
against the then sitting Judge of this Court, by order dated 18/04/2019, this
petition was directed to be listed before another Bench.
12. Having considered the nature of submissions made by the Petitioner-
in-person and having perused the impugned order and the record, we find
that the impugned order is neither perverse, nor is there any error apparent
on the face of the record. There is also no jurisdictional error. Not appearing
for departmental enquiry on the specious ground of being mentally ill while
continuing with other pursuits of life normally and demanding cancellation
Page 7 / 8
akn
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
WP.2914.2019 C2.doc
of transfer order also, has not found favour with the Tribunal. The view
taken by the Tribunal is a probable view, which is based on the material
available on the record. Therefore no interference is called for in writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
13. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J) Page 8 / 8 akn ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2025 22:18:44 :::
[ad_1]
Source link