Sangitrao S. Patil JUDGMENT
Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. This Petition takes exception to the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner as per the Memorandum bearing No. Admn/PAD/2013/8709 dated 20.11.2013 issued by respondent No. 3 Deputy General Manager (Admn.), and also to the show cause notice dated 05.08.2015 issued by respondent No. 3 pursuant to the enquiry report dated 31.12.2014.
4. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition as disclosed by the petitioner are as under:
"It is the case of the petitioner that he has rendered more than 32 years of service with unblemished record. He got promotion in the year 2012 to the post of Incharge Regional Manager for Nanded Region. His performance has been appreciated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When he was working as Regional Manager at Nanded, he could achieve remarkable sale of Rs. 125.00 crores during the year 2012-2013 and respondent No. 2 Managing Director issued appreciation letter on 08.04.2013 to him for achieving record sale of pesticides during the year 2012-13. It is further the case of the petitioner that his subordinates, without his prior permission, exceeded their powers and distributed excess fertilizers to Venkatesh Agency at Parbhani, for which he called their explanations and the said thing was informed to respondent No. 2. He took written assurance from the Venkatesh Agency, Parbhani that the same would be cleared as early as possible."
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was shocked to receive show cause notice dated 27.08.2013 issued by respondent No. 3, alleging that the petitioner supplied fertilizers in excess to Venkatesh Agency, Parbhani, who was defaulter instead of supplying the same to old and active distributor M/s. Ganesh Krushi Vikas Kendra, Parbhani. The petitioner was asked to give explanation within 10 days of receiving the notice to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged misconduct. The petitioner received notice on 06.09.2013. He was supposed to submit his explanation by 16.09.2013. However, without waiting explanation from the petitioner, respondent No. 3 issued an order of suspension. The petitioner challenged the said order of suspension before the High Court, by filing Writ Petition No. 8233/2013. However, in the said Writ Petition, no interim relief was granted.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that by letter dated 26.11.2013, respondent No. 3 informed that respondent No. 2 has proposed to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner, as per Memorandum dated 20.11.2013 along with statement of article of charges and the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days. On 22.02.2014, the documents sought by the petitioner were supplied. The petitioner filed written statement of defence on 22.02.2014, denying charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondents. The hearing was kept on 18.04.2014 and the same continued till 29.07.2014. During pendency of the departmental enquiry, a crime was registered against the petitioner and others with Shivaji Nagar Police Station on 02.06.2014. Since the petitioner was going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014, he requested respondent No. 2 to fix his pay in the revised pay scale as per the Government order dated 21.05.2014, whereby the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission were directed to be implemented and the arrears to be paid w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner sent notice to respondent Corporation on 30.07.2014, stating therein that he is not in a position to attend the hearing on 29/30.07.2014 and n........