Sandeep V. Marne JUDGMENT
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 26.06.2018, by which penalty of dismissal from service is imposed upon her. She also challenges the orders rejecting first appeal, second appeal as well as mercy appeal passed on 07.07.2018, 29.10.2018 and 02.01.2019 respectively.
3. Petitioner, while working as a clerk, was issued with memorandum of charge sheet dated 18.12.2017 initiating disciplinary proceedings against her on the charge of abusing and assaulting Deputy Executive Engineer on 25.10.2017. It appears that before issuance of the memorandum of charge sheet dated 18.12.2017, a preliminary enquiry was conducted behind her back, in which statements of various witnesses were recorded. Such prerecorded statements were to be relied upon in the course of enquiry.
4. The enquiry was conducted only on one day i.e. 04.05.2018. Admittedly, not even single witness was summoned in the enquiry for deposition. Therefore, question of petitioner cross examining them did not arise. The enquiry officer took into consideration the prerecorded statements of the witnesses and submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against her were proved. After receipt of the enquiry officer's report, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 21.05.2018 calling upon her to explain as to why penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. She submitted reply on 02.06.2018. Thereafter disciplinary authority proceeded to pass order dated 26.06.2018 imposing penalty of dismissal from service. Her first, second and mercy appeals came to be rejected by orders dated 07.07.2018, 29.10.2018 and 02.01.2019 respectively. These orders are under challenge before us.
5. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel would submit that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are vitiated on account of absence of any evidence being recorded in the enquiry. He would submit that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of perversity. That the principles of natural justice were given a complete go-bye while holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. She was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who never turned up for enquiry. He would rely upon following decisions of the Apex Court.
i. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in MANU/SC/8456/2008 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 921.
ii. Ministry of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh reported in MANU/SC/0071/1998 : AIR 1998 SC 853.
iii. Union of India and others Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat reported in MANU/SC/7336/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 01.
iv. Mini Shankar Vs. Union of India and another reported in MANU/SC/7298/2008 : (2008) 3 SCC 484.
6. Mr. Deshpande would also rely on the decision of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chief Engineer Latur Zone and Competent Officer MSEDCL and another Vs. Nathuram Wamanrao Mundhe, Writ Petition No. 11616 of 2018 decided on 20.02.2020.
7. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company would support the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings. He relies upon the provisions of the MSEDCL Employees' Service Regulation 2005 (for short ........