1 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1796 OF 20 14 Sayyed Sakkil Sayyad Mahaboob Aged about 60 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Reserve Line Police Headquarters, Jaju Chowk, Yavatmal. 1. Najmunnisa Shakil Syed, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, 2. Reshma Akkhatar Shakil Syed, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Unemployed (Graduate) 3. Seema Nahid Shakil Syed, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Unemployed (Graduate) 4. Shahid Shakil Syed, Aged about 28 years, Hockey Player, All 1 to 4 R/o. Jaju Chowk Reserve Police Line Headquarter, Yavatmal, Tah. and District- Yavatma. 5. Zahid Shakil Syed, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Self employed, R/o. C/o. Mr. Gautam Ashalaxmi Apartment, Ravi Nagar, Nagpur ... PETITIONER(S) Legal Heirs of Petitioner brought on record as per Court’s order dated 7/6/2016. 2026:BHC-NAG:9899-DB 2 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Director General of Police, Regal Theatre, Kulaba, Mumbai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Amol S. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner(s). Shri Nitin Autkar, AGP for respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE , J J . DATED : J UL Y 27, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J) 1. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. In the present matter, a challenge is raised to the order dated 02/09/2013 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short, 3 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt “Tribunal”) in Original Application (OA) No. 505/2007, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner raising a challenge to removal of the petitioner from service as a Police Hawaldar after conducting a department inquiry. 3. The brief facts of the present case are as under:- The petitioner was working as a Police Hawaldar. He did not attend the duties for 2811 days from 06/07/2002. Thereupon, a departmental inquiry was initiated on seven charges, which are as follows:- “1) He had remained absent from duty on ground of sickness w.e.f.6/7/2002; 2) He had submitted xerox copies of medical documents for the period from 15/11/2002 to 31/1/2003, that is, for a total period of 3 months and 15 days. In spite of being directed to do so, he did not submit any documents in support of his absence for the remaining period. Thus, it is proved that he was unauthorizedly absent for such a long period against the Rules of Conduct and Discipline; 3) He did not remain present on duty in spite of written instructions and he did not inform the police station about his whereabouts and he has thus 4 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt committed breach of discipline; 4) In spite of written directions issued to him through the Police Station on 9 different occasions from 6/1/2003 to 8/4/2004 to present himself before the Medical Board, he did not do so and his action is illegal and against the discipline of the Department; 5) He had irresponsibly kept his family in the dark about his whereabouts and his absence from his residence as is learnt from his wife and son and his son had informed in writing that he did not listen to them. 6) He was inflicted with major punishment after departmental enquiry for his prolonged unauthorized absence in the year 1999. In spite of this, there is no improvement in his conduct. 7) In addition to the above period of absence he was unauthorizedly absent for 2811 days during his service period. Due to this his conduct is illegal and wrong and this is unbecoming for the Police Department. 4. It is evident that the aforementioned charges are mainly relating to the absenteeism and non-submission of the documents about certification for such absenteeism, despite various opportunities were granted to the petitioner. 5. The Enquiry Officer, on 31/08/2005, submitted his 5 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt report holding all the charges, except Charge No. 6, as proved. 6. On 09/09/2005, the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal issued a Show Cause Notice of removal from service to the applicant (the petitioner herein). 7. The applicant replied to the same on 04/10/2005. Thereafter, on 14/10/2005, the personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. 8. On 18/10/2005, the order of removal from service was issued to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred the departmental appeal before the Special I.G.P., Amravati Range, which came to be rejected vide order dated 13/02/2006, granting liberty to the petitioner to departmental appeal before the D.G.P. 10. On submission of such appeal, the respondent no. 2/D.G.P. rejected the appeal vide order dated 08/12/2006. 6 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt 11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order of removal dated 18/10/2005 and rejection of departmental appeal vide order dated 08/12/2006, the petitioner constrained to file an OA before the learned Tribunal. 12. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 02/09/2013 dismissed the OA preferred by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP. 14. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. It is submitted that, the charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner personally, but was served through his wife and son. 15. He further submits that the department had complete knowledge about the sickness of the petitioner and therefore, the department ought to have waited till the 7 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt recovery of the petitioner and should not have proceeded with the departmental inquiry. 16. It is argued that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the accused is not well, the trial cannot be conducted until he recovers from the sickness. He submits that the same principle will apply to the departmental inquiry. 17. On the other hand, the learned AGP argues that the learned Tribunal, after considering the record and dealing with each and every argument made by the petitioner, dismissed the OA by recording detailed findings. It is submitted that no perversity is committed by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the OA. He, further submits that this Court may not therefore interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. 18. Let us examine the merit in the rival submissions. 19. While making the first contention that the charge- sheet ought to have been served upon the petitioner personally and not, in his absence, upon his wife or son, Shri 8 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short, “Rules of 1979”), more particularly, Sub-rule 4 of Rule 8, which read thus:- “The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant, a copy of articles of charge the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, and a list of documents and of the witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained, and shall by a written notice require the Government servant to submit to it within such time as may be specified in the notice, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.” 20. From the language of Sub-rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1979, it cannot be gathered that a copy of the articles of charges must be delivered by the disciplinary authority, or caused to be delivered, to the government servant personally. 21. In the present matter, admittedly, when the articles of charges were tried to serve upon the petitioner at his home, he was not found present there. When the statement of his 9 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt son was recorded, he stated in his statement that his father not attended duties for two years. He further stated that his father was undergoing treatment at J.J. Hospital, Nagpur, and therefore, he remained out for 2 to 3 months without informing the family of his whereabouts. He further states that once in 2 or 3 months, the petitioner comes and would go back without informing his wife and son. 22. Thus, it is evident that even the wife and son had knowledge about the whereabouts of the petitioner. 23. Hence, insistence of personal service in such circumstances make it impossible to conduct inquiry. A person who is not attending the duty and even not staying at his given address, it is possible to conduct enquiry. The intention/object of the Rules is to secure and ensure discipline would be frustrated otherwise. Therefore, such interpretation cannot be accepted. 24. It has come on record that a service of the articles of charges and the Show Cause Notice,was made to the wife and 10 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt the son of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner. The notice was pasted on the house of the petitioner in addition. 25. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that there is a compliance of Sub- rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1979 in respect of delivery of the articles of charges to the government servant. 26. As per as the Show Cause Notice served upon the petitioner before imposing the punishment, namely removal from service, the petitioner submitted his reply, which was considered and thereupon, the order of removal from service was issued. 27. Even the appeal filed against the same by the petitioner before the DGP came to be rejected after considering the case of the petitioner. 28. It is to be noted that along with the OA filed before the learned Tribunal, the documents relating to admission to the Hospital, discharge and any other necessary documents pertaining to medical treatment during the period of 11 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt absenteeism, were not produced to justify his case of illness and to show that the situation was beyond his control to attend the duties. In absence of any such material produced before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal is justifiable in dismissing the OA. 29. The order of removal discloses that despite being given nine chances to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, he did not appear. Further, on similar grounds, in the year 1999, he was punished. Despite that, no improvement was found in the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, such conduct of the petitioner is derogatory and is not befitting to a government servant. 30. The procedure which has to be followed while conducting the trial in the criminal matter cannot be equated with the procedure to be followed in the departmental inquiry, considering the consequences of both proceedings and the standard of evidence required. 12 10) WP 1796-2014-J.odt 31. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, we do not find any perversity committed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for interference. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Khapekar Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/08/2026 20:20:21