KANTU SHANKAR RATHOD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2006 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad [for short ' MAT " ] in Original Application No.830/1996 with Misc. Application No.61/1999 with Original Application No.831/1996 with Misc. Application Stamp No.1358/1998, and the order of termination dated 08.08.1996 issued by respondent no.4.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 belongs to ' Vimukta Jati " [VJ] category, whereas petitioner no.2 belongs to NTD category. On 08.05.1995, the respondent authorities, after verifying the entire documents of the petitioners and after following the entire selection process, selected the petitioners for the post of Police Constable from sportsmen category. After selection of the petitioners, they have undergone training at Police Headquarter for a period of 6 months, and thereafter at Police Training Centre, Akola for a period of 9 months. After completion of the training, the petitioners have joined the posts of Police Constable at Police Headquarter, Osmanabad. By common order dated 08.08.1996, respondent no.4 terminated the services of the petitioners without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the said impugned order of termination before the MAT at Aurangabad, by filing Original Application Nos.830/1996 and 831/1996. The MAT in Misc. Application No.61/1999 and Misc. Application Stamp No.1358/1998 granted interim relief on 17.01.2000 in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of said interim order, the respondents have reinstated the petitioners on the post of Police Constable. After hearing both the parties, the MAT was pleased to dismiss the Original Applications filed by the petitioners by order dated 16.08.2006, and vacated the interim relief.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were appointed on 8th May, 1995, and thereafter they are continued in the service on the basis of the interim order passed by the MAT. He further submits that even during pendency of this Petition, the petitioners " services have been protected, and by this time the petitioners have completed more than 22 years service. Even respondents have granted promotion to the petitioners, and therefore, keeping in view the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Mah & ors. Vs. Arun Digambarrao Kulkarni in Writ Petition No.4204 of 2008, decided on 9th August, 2017. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners " services deserve to be protected. It is submitted that the respondents, without considering the provisions in para 78 [1] of the Bombay Police Manual, Vol.1, 1959, and in particular clause (vii) thereof, and without following the principles of natural justice, terminated the services of the petitioners. In support of his contention that, the services, even on temporary basis, cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice, he placed reliance on the exposition of law by the Division Bench [Coram : V.G.Palshikar and Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ.] in the case of Dattaraya Kaluram Dedge Vs. Union of India & another, (2005) 2 MahLJ 295. He further invites our attention to the various documents, and also interim order passed by the MAT and submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.