Bombay High Court
ARVIND DINKAR BHOSALEversusTHE COMMISSIONER JALGAON CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JALGAON AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with procedure, no irregularity or perversity was evident, and the punishment was proportionate, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Arvind Dinkar Bhosale, challenged the Standing Committee of Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation's order dismissing his appeal against a disciplinary order that stopped two salary increments. He alleged that the charges were improperly framed, evidence insufficient, and the enquiry violated natural justice. The respondents contended that the disciplinary process was proper, noting prior disciplinary action and that the petitioner was later regularized before retirement. The High Court examined the enquiry report and found that the prescribed procedure was followed, no procedural irregularity or perversity existed, and the punishment was proportionate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no ground for interference.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary enquiry and the Standing Committee's dismissal of the appeal violated principles of natural justice
- Whether there were procedural irregularities in framing charges or conducting the enquiry
- Whether the imposed punishment of stopping two increments was disproportionate
Subjects
- disciplinary action
- municipal corporation
- natural justice
- proportionality
- writ petition
- service law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23212-DB
(1) 932 WP 652 OF 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
932 WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 2017
ARVIND DINKAR BHOSALE
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER JALGAON CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JALGAON
AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Ravindra Nirmal, Advocate for the Petitioner (Through V.C.)
Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for Respondent/ - State
Mr. L. V. Sangit , Advocate for Respondent No.1
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12.06.2026
PER COURT :-
. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate
for respondents. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order
passed by the Standing Committee of respondent No.1 – Jalgaon City
Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, dismissing the appeal preferred against the
order passed by the learned Commissioner of the Corporation in departmental
enquiry proceedings. The punishment of stoppage of two increments came to
be imposed upon the petitioner.
(2) 932 WP 652 OF 2017
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the
charges against the petitioner were not properly framed. There was no
sufficient evidence to prove the charges. The action, therefore, suffers from
arbitrariness and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits
that the enquiry was not properly conducted. The conclusions have also been
wrongly drawn. He tried to submit, by taking this Court through the enquiry
report, that there were two other departments involved in the alleged
incident. However, the responsibility has been cast only upon the present
petitioner. The Commissioner thus failed to appreciate the case properly and
the Standing Committee wrongly dismissed the appeal. He, therefore, submits
that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Mr. L. V. Sangit, learned advocate, by pointing out the contents of
the reply, states that earlier also disciplinary action was taken against the
petitioner. The petitioner was even dismissed from service on 28.04.2022.
However, in appeal, the Standing Committee absorbed him on regular post
and thereafter he retired on 28.02.2023. He submits that the service record of
the petitioner was never unblemished. The Enquiry Officer has rightly arrived
at the conclusions on the basis of the available evidence. He thus prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
(3) 932 WP 652 OF 2017
5. This Court has gone through the impugned order passed by the
Commissioner and the order passed by the Standing Committee. This Court
clearly finds that the prescribed procedure was followed. An enquiry was also
conducted. Nothing has been shown to indicate any procedural irregularity in
the enquiry proceedings. No perversity is observed either in the order passed
by the Commissioner or in the order passed by the Standing Committee. The
punishment also appears to be proportionate and does not shock the
conscience of the Court. Considering the above, no case is made out calling for
interference at the hands of this Court.
6. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
PRW
Checking your session…