SANTOSH KISHANRAO KARALE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
WP/11168/2026 · 2026-09-03
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7092 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7092 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
*1* 32-wp-11168-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 32 WRIT PETITION NO. 11168 OF 2026 Santosh Kishanrao Karale VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ... Mr. R. V. Gunale h/f. Mr. Vishwamber D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State …
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :-
1. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before Respondent No.3, challenging his termination, was filed in the year 2019. The said appeal is yet not decided. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6656/2010, seeking payment of arrears of salary. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn on 15.10.2010, with liberty to file a representation before Respondent No.2 therein, i.e., Respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3, by order dated 25.02.2013, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was consistently absent without Narwade 2026:BHC-AUG:40485-DB
*2* 32-wp-11168-2026 requisite permission, for a period of three (3) years. By relying on the said order, Respondent No.3 has refused to consider the appeal of the petitioner challenging his termination order, stating that the grievance of the petitioner is already considered and rejected by order dated 25.02.2013.
3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that Respondent No.3 has failed to consider that the prayers made in the earlier representation and in the present appeal are totally different, he ought to have decided the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits.
4. Since the impugned order dated 03.06.2021 is passed on misconception of facts, the same is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, after hearing the concerned, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Narwade