STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF MAHARASHTRA MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND ORSversusSANT PRASAD SINGH

                     Digitally
                     signed by                              5-19455-2024.DOC
                     CHITRA
            CHITRA   SANJAY
            SANJAY   SONAWANE
            SONAWANE Date:
                     2026.09.02
                     19:30:17
                     +0530




                                                                   Chitra Sonawane.

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 19455 OF 2024


State Of Maharashtra Through The Chief                         …Petitioners.
Secretary Govt Of Maharashtra Mantralaya
Mumbai And Ors
           Versus
Sant Prasad Singh                                           …Respondent.


Smt.RA Salunkhe, AGP for the Petitioner/State.
Ms. Swapna Pramod Kode for Respondent.


                             CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                           ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

                             DATED:        25th AUGUST 2026.
PC:-

1.     Heard Smt.R.A.Salunkhe, learned AGP for the Petitioner-
State and Ms Swapna Kode, learned Counsel for the sole
Respondent.

2.     This Writ Petition is preferred by the State of Maharashtra
against the Judgment and Order dated 21st March 2024, passed by
the    learned    Maharashtra         Administrative   Tribunal,    Mumbai,
("Tribunal" for short) in Original Application No.877 of 2017 partly
allowing the Original Application filed by the sole Respondent.

3.     Facts of the case, as apparent from the material on record, in
a nutshell, are as hereunder :




                                      Page 1 of 8
                                                     5-19455-2024.DOC




4.    In the year 2011, the sole Respondent was subjected to a
departmental enquiry while he was serving as an Assistant
Manager in the office of Petitioner No.3 - Resident Commissioner,
Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi. He was working under the
supervision of the Resident Commissioner. In the departmental
enquiry, as many as 5 Charges were brought against the
Respondent. On conclusion of the enquiry, by the Order dated 19th
January 2013, major penalty of dismissal from service was
imposed upon the Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent,
as Original Applicant, had instituted Original Application No.877
of 2017, assailing the Order dated 19th January 2013, by means of
which he was dismissed from service.

5.    In the Original Application, the Applicant-Respondent, apart
from challenging the Order dated 19th January 2013, had also
prayed for other consequential reliefs including issuance of
direction for promotion to the higher post, which prayers were
however, not considered by the learned Tribunal. As a matter of
fact, the learned Tribunal had only granted prayer No.1 under
Clause 9(i) of the Original Application, whereby, challenge was
made to the Order of dismissal from service dated 19 th January
2013. Since the Respondent has not filed any petition challenging
the Judgment and Order dated 21 st March 2024 to the extent his
prayers under prayer Clauses 9(ii) to 9(vii) were declined by the
learned Tribunal, hence, it would not be necessary for this Court to
go into the said aspect of the matter. Suffice it to note herein that
the only question that would arise for consideration in the present
Petition is as to whether, the learned Tribunal was justified in




                              Page 2 of 8
                                                    5-19455-2024.DOC




interfering with the Order of dismissal from the service dated 19 th
January 2013 on the grounds and reasons indicated in the
impugned Order.

6.    From the material on record, we find that in the
Departmental Enquiry, the following 5 Charges were framed
against the Respondent.

       (i) Violation of roster point in direct recruitment
       and depriving the reserved candidates of their
       rights.
       (ii) Issued Permanent Certificate to ineligible
       employees.
       (iii) Violation of roster point in promotion to
       deprive the reserved category candidates of their
       right.
       (iv) Dereliction in service rules resulting loss of
       employees.
       (v) Not accepting the assigned responsibility and
       not obeying the Government orders intentionally.

7.    After examining the material on record, the Tribunal was of
the view that the charges were vague, the evidence was insufficient
to establish the charges and the punishment was disproportionate.
As a matter of fact, it was observed in the impugned Judgment and
Order itself that the main allegation brought against the
Respondent was for alleged violation of the Roster point, thus
depriving the reserved category candidates of their rights.
However, the learned Tribunal has also recorded a finding that said




                             Page 3 of 8
                                                      5-19455-2024.DOC




Roster did not even receive the approval of the GAD department
on the date on which the alleged violation had taken place.

8.    After taking note of the averments made in paragraph No. 2
of the Affidavit dated 5th March 2024 filed by the Assistant
Resident Commissioner (Administration), Maharashtra Sadan, New
Delhi, the learned Tribunal, has held that the main charge of
violating the roster is not proved. It was further observed that the
Affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner clearly shows that the
approval of the GAD for the roster was received only on 3rd May
2013, whereas the charges in regard to breach of roster relates to
an earlier period. The Tribunal, had accordingly, arrived at the
finding that the charges, on the basis of which the order of
dismissal from service dated 19th January 2013 was issued, had not
been substantiated. Therefore, the order dated 19th January 2013,
was set aside. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the
learned Tribunal, the State has preferred this Writ Petition.

9.    Smt. R.A.Salunkhe, the learned AGP for the Petitioner-State,
submits that it is not a case of a single charge but a number of
charges were brought against the Respondent. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the charges have not
been proved merely on account of the fact that one of the charges
was found to be not proved. The said submission of the Petitioner’s
Counsel has, however, been stoutly denied by the learned Counsel
for the Respondent, who submits that her client has been subjected
to undue harassment, mental agony and trauma by subjecting him
to the Departmental Enquiry. According to her, the Order dated




                              Page 4 of 8
                                                      5-19455-2024.DOC




19th January 2013 is illegal, arbitrary, and hence, unsustainable in
law. The learned Counsel further submits that her client has retired
from service on 31st January 2013 (wrongly mentioned as 31st
March 2013, in the impugned Judgment and Order of the
Tribunal) but he has not been paid his pension or retirement dues
till date. She submits that the Writ Petition be dismissed.


10.   We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have also perused the material on record.

11.   At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to note herein
that although there were as many as 5 charges brought against the
Respondent, as noted above, yet, none of these charges, in our
considered opinion, made out proper imputation of misconduct
against the Respondent. If those charges are viewed individually,
even then, in our view, those are completely vague, bereft of
material particulars and hence, not capable of being properly
responded to by the Respondent. As such, we are of the opinion
that on such count alone, the departmental enquiry stood vitiated
due to failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to frame
proper and definite charges in the Departmental Enquiry.

12.   It is settled law that a departmental enquiry, based on vague
charges, which do not provide a proper opportunity to the
delinquent to defend his interest, would be unsustainable in law.
Therefore, any order of penalty imposed on the basis of such
disciplinary enquiry would also be unsustainable in law.

13.   The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs.




                              Page 5 of 8
                                                      5-19455-2024.DOC




S.Sree Rama Rao1 has taken the view that where a delinquent is
served with chargesheet without specific and definite charge, the
enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice. In Sawai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan2,
the Supreme Court has held that the charges must be clear, definite
and specific as otherwise it would be difficult for any delinquent to
meet the vague charges.

14.   In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar3 the
Supreme Court has summarised the law on this issue and held that
charges should be specific and definite, giving details of the
incident which formed the basis of the charges. No enquiry can be
sustained on vague charges. It was observed that the Enquiry
Proceeding must be conducted fairly, objectively and not
subjectively. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the
finding of fact in context of the statute defining the misconduct.


15.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the view that the charges brought against the Respondent
are totally vague and hence, the Departmental Enquiry based on
such vague charges itself was unsustainable in law. Therefore, no
order of penalty could have been passed against the Respondent
based on such Departmental Enquiry.

16.   Apart from the above, we also deem it appropriate to
observe herein that even if the basic allegation brought against

1     MANU/SC/0222/1963
2     MANU/SC/0340/1986
3     MANU/SC/0897/2009




                              Page 6 of 8
                                                      5-19455-2024.DOC




Respondent is accepted on its face, even then, it is difficult to
assume that the Respondent would manipulate the record to such
an extent so as to single handedly alter the Roster. The learned
Tribunal has also taken note of the said fact before recording the
finding that the charge has not been proved. We are in complete
agreement with the view expressed by the learned Tribunal on the
above point.

17.   Another    issue   which    deserves   consideration    is   the
proportionality of the punishment. In the given facts, even if the
charges brought against the Respondent are held to be proved,
even then, the penalty of dismissal from service, that too on the
eve of the Petitioner's retirement from service, appears to be
shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Be that, as
it may, since the Respondent has already retired from service and
the issue raised in the Writ Petition is confined only to the question
of validity of the judgment and order dated 21st March 2024,
passed by the Tribunal, we refrain from delving any further into
that aspect of the matter.

18.   For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any
cogent ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order
passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

19.   We, however, make it clear that in view of this Order, the
Petitioners shall release the Pension as well as the retirement dues
of the Respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, failing which the amount would carry interest @
9% per annum from the date of the said amount becoming due




                              Page 7 of 8
                                                     5-19455-2024.DOC




and payable, until realization.

20.   Writ Petition stands disposed of.

21.   All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order.




(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                        (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                    {




                              Page 8 of 8