Bombay High Court

SANTOSH KISHANRAO KARALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The impugned order refusing to entertain the appeal was based on a misconception of facts and is quashed, mandating the State to decide the appeal on its own merits.

Summary

The petitioner, Santosh Kishanrao Karale, filed a writ petition challenging the State of Maharashtra's refusal to consider his 2019 appeal against his termination, alleging that the earlier representation and the current appeal raise distinct issues. The State had previously rejected his representation on the ground of three years of unauthorised absence and then refused to entertain his appeal, claiming the grievance was already decided. The High Court examined whether the State correctly applied the earlier order to the new appeal and found that it had conflated the two distinct petitions. It held that the impugned order was based on a misconception of facts and therefore must be set aside. The Court directed the State to hear the pending appeal on its merits within twelve weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

What is the correct procedure for adjudicating a separate appeal challenging termination when a prior representation on a different ground has been rejected?
Whether the State's reliance on the earlier order rejecting the representation bars consideration of the new appeal on its own merits.

Subjects

termination of service
writ petition
administrative law
appeal procedure
misconception of facts
procedural fairness

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40485-DB


                                                  *1*                   32-wp-11168-2026


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                32 WRIT PETITION NO. 11168 OF 2026

                                   Santosh Kishanrao Karale
                                            VERSUS
                  The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
                                              ...
                Mr. R. V. Gunale h/f. Mr. Vishwamber D. Gunale, Advocate for
                the Petitioner
                Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
                                              …
                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                      DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.         The appeal preferred by the petitioner before Respondent

                No.3, challenging his termination, was filed in the year 2019.

                The said appeal is yet not decided. Hence, the petitioner is

                before this Court.

                2.         The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ

                Petition No.6656/2010, seeking payment of arrears of salary.

                The said Writ Petition was withdrawn on 15.10.2010, with

                liberty to file a representation before Respondent No.2 therein,

                i.e., Respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3, by order dated

                25.02.2013, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the

                ground that the petitioner was consistently absent without


                Narwade
                                   *2*                    32-wp-11168-2026


requisite permission, for a period of three (3) years. By relying

on the said order, Respondent No.3 has refused to consider the

appeal of the petitioner challenging his termination order,

stating that the grievance of the petitioner is already considered

and rejected by order dated 25.02.2013.

3.        Perusal of the impugned order reveals that Respondent

No.3 has failed to consider that the prayers made in the earlier

representation and in the present appeal are totally different, he

ought to have decided the appeal filed by the petitioner on its

own merits.

4.        Since the impugned order dated 03.06.2021 is passed on

misconception of facts, the same is quashed and set aside.

Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the pending appeal of the

petitioner on its own merits, after hearing the concerned, within

a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

5.        Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                 (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Narwade

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…