Order wp 6873.2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 6873 of 2025 [Avinash Ashoksingh More and ors. vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Yavatmal and ors.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. C. A. Babrekar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, Addl. G.P. for the State/respondent no. 3 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 03-09-2026. On 2-7-2026, following order was passed. “1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are seeking to quash and set aside the disciplinary inquiry initiated by Respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, in an appeal filed under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1964”). 4. The appeal was filed against the order imposing penalty for withholding one increment permanently. The Divisional Commissioner was pleased to allow the appeal, having found that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with the procedure laid down under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964 and accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner was pleased to remand back the inquiry for consideration afresh. The order was passed on 06.06.2019. 5. The argument is that since then, there is absolutely no progress except for issuing notice to the petitioners to appear for hearing. Learned 2026:BHC-NAG:11682-DB Order wp 6873.2025.odt 2 counsel submits that no hearing, however, has taken place. He has then invited our attention to the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1. 6. By the said order, Respondent No. 1 has appointed the Block Development Officer as Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer was appointed after 5 years of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. He further submits that even after his appointment, there is absolutely no progress. 7. The reply filed by Respondent No. 1 is completely silent on these points. What is said is that the respondent had appointed the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry is in progress. The status of the inquiry is not before us. There is nothing to show about the progress achieved in the inquiry. 8. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the Respondent No.1 failed to initiate and complete the inquiry within reasonable time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, AIR 2006 SC 207, to contend that such delay would result in vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. 10. Thus, for the lapses committed by the respondents, the petitioners will be benefited despite serious allegations against them of submitting a false Digital Certificate for husband and wife unification so as to get desired transfer posting. The lapses, in our view, are indicative of the parties acting in collusion. 11. We, accordingly, direct the Divisional Commissioner to inquire into the matter and file a detailed report as regards the lapses alleged against Respondent No. 1 in completing the disciplinary proceedings. For that purpose, the petitioners shall add the Divisional Commissioner as party Respondent No. 3. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. 12. Issue notice, returnable on 03.09.2026. 13. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Order wp 6873.2025.odt 3 14. The report shall be filed within 8 weeks from today. 15. The Divisional Commissioner is at liberty to recommend/take appropriate action against the erring officials. 16. Learned AGP shall convey the order to the Divisional Commissioner within two working days.” 2. In response, learned Additional Government Pleader has tendered across bar enquiry report dated 3-8-2026. Same is taken on record and marked Article ‘X’ for identification. 3. It appears that respondent no. 3 has appointed Assistant Commissioner as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry has been conducted. Various officials working with respondent no. 1 were found responsible for delay and laches. The enquiry has been initiated against them. We hope that the enquiry against erring officials will be completed in terms of the law laid down in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board [AIR 2006 SC 207]. 4. So far as petitioners are concerned, the enquiry against them has been completed. The petitioners were found not guilty to the charges levelled against them. 5. That being so, nothing survives in the petition because the prayer is to set aside the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioners. The enquiry having been completed and the petitioners exonerated, Order wp 6873.2025.odt 4 the petition has rendered infructuous. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Copy of order shall be served upon respondent no. 3 – Divisional Commissioner so as to take steps to complete the enquiry within time. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) wasnik Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/09/2026 16:08:46