DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusBHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI

A        DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
                                          v.
                  BHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI

                                  JULY I 0, 2006

B               [ARJJJT PASAYAT AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]


          Service Law:

          Departmental Jnquiry--Termination of delinquent-Dispensing with
C departmental inquiry-Challenged-Tribunal and High Court set aside order
    of termination on the ground that the reasons for dispensing with inquiry were
    given after the impugned order-In appeal, held: Order of termination
    dispensing with the inquiry was rightly made-Reading of the entire order
    makes it clear that reasons were recorded before the impugned order was
D   passed-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311(2).

          The services of the respondent-delinquent was terminated. The order
    of termination was passed dispensing with the inquiry in terms of Article
    311(2) of the Constitution of India, giving reasons for the same. The order
    was challenged in Writ Petition which was later transferred to Tribunal.
E   Tribunal set aside the termination order on the ground that the reasons
    for dispensing with the inquiry were given after passing of the impugned
    order which was evident from the change in the title of the termination
    order. In Writ Petition, High Court upheld the order of Tribunal.

           In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the change in the
F
    title was inconsequential.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: The view expressed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
G Court is unsustainable for the simple reason that the alleged change is
    inconsequential. A reading of the entire order makes the position crystal
    clear that the reasons were recorded before the order was passed.
                                                                                     ..
                                                                       [364-F-G)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1251 of2005.
H                                       362
      DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA"· BHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI [PASAYAT. J.]   363

          From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.2003 High Court of Judicature                   A
     at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 4125/2002.

           V.N. Raghupathy and Mukesh K. Giri for the Appellants.

           A.K. Sanghi and Sangram V. Sirpukar for the Respondent.
                                                                                                 B
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the
     judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur
-c    Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, thereby upholding
     the order passed by the Maharashtr~ Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench,                  c
     Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

           The controversy lies in a very narrow compass.

            The respondent was working as a Peon in the establishment of Director,
     Town Planning, Akola. An order of tennination was passed taking note of D
     several acts of mis-conduct by the respondent. The order of termination was
     passed dispensing with inquiry in terms of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
     of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). In the order dated 7.5.1986 fifteen
     charges of misconduct were referred to. The Deputy Director of Town
     Planning, Amravati, Division Amravati, passed the order indicating the~ein E
     that the various acts of the respondent clearly demonstrated his unsuitability
     and the reasons as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold an
     inquiry as is referred to in clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution.
     Therefore, dispensing with the inquiry the concerned authority decided to
     terminate him from service after giving him one month's salary instead of
     one month's notice. It was noted that he was in police custody from 30.4.1986 F
     to 8.5.1986. All the employees of the office were terrified due to his horrible
     acts and possibility of his resorting to tumult and terrify members of the staff
     after release from police custody cannot be ruled out and suspension would
     not be an effective means to check his unlawful activities.
                                                                                                 G
            Legality of the order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ
~)
     petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. After creation
     of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal.

           The only ground taken by respondent before the Tribunal in support of
     the petition was that the reasons for dispensing with departmental inquiry H
    364                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A were not recorded prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 7.5.1986
    and, in fact, it had been recorded after the passing of the impugned order.
    The Tribunal accepted this plea referring to the original file which was
    produced and the title of the order. The Tribunal observed that initially it was
    recorded as "Sheet showing reasons for removal of Shri B. Kulkarni" which
B   was subsequently corrected as "Sheet showing reasons for removal of Shri B.
    Kulkarni, peon".

         According to the Tribunal this change appears to have been made to
  show that it was recorded prior to passing of the order, but it was apparent
  that the same was corrected subsequently. Accordingly, the order oftennination
C was set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court
  was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the Tribunal's view was
  correct.

         In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
  that a bare reading of the entire order dated 7.5.1986 clearly shows that the
D reasons were recorded prior to the passing of the order. According to him
  even purported change on which great emphasis was laid by the Tribunal did
  not in any manner justify a different conclusion. It was pointed out that the
  reasons recorded have not been found inadequate by the Tribunal. The finding
  that the subsequent correction was made is without any basis and foundation.
E          Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
    the English translation as given does not reflect the correct position and the
    original order which was in a Marathi language has been referred to by the
    Tribunal to conclude that change was subsequently made to make it appear
    as if the reasons were recorded ~artier.
F
        The view express1ed by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is
  clearly unsustainable for the simple reason that as is rightly contended by the
  learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged change is inconsequential. A
  reading of the entire order makes the position crystal clear that the reasons
  were recorded before the order was passed. A few portions of the order
G would make the position clear beyond a shadow of doubt. Two illustrations
  would suffice. The English translation which is undisputed and is accepted
  to be correct reads as follow:                                                       ...
           "I am fully satisfied about this and as regional competent officer I
           decide to tenninate him from service" ... "An order to that effect is
H
       DIRECTOR. TOWN PLANNING MAHARASHTRA''· BHALCHANDRA VASANTRAO KULKARNI [PASAYATJJ   365

                being issued."                                                                  A
            Above being the position, the order of the Tribunal as well as the
      impugned order of the High Court deserve to be set aside, and we direct
--    accordingly.

           The appeal is allowed. No costs.                                                     B
      K.K.T .                                                            Appeal allowed.




 ..