Hemant Dattatraya Silam vs Transport WP 4974/2011 on 2 February, 2012

Bombay High Court

Hemant Dattatraya Silam vs Transport on 2 February, 2012

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo

pps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4974 of 2011

      Hemant Dattatraya Silam,

      Aged 59 years

      res. at S-1/603,

      Sundar Nagar,

      S.V.Road, Malad (West),

      Mumbai 400 064                                         ...Petitioner

           Versus         

      State of Maharashtra

      through its Principal Secretary.

      (Transport), Home Department,

      Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032                           ...Respondent

      Mr. R.K.Mendadkar for Petitioner.

      Mr. A.B.Vagyani, AGP for the State

                                WITH

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3836 of 2011

      State of Maharashtra

      through its Principal Secretary.

      (Transport), Home Department,

      Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032                                ...Petitioner

                                                             (Org.Respondent)

           Versus

      Hemant Dattatraya Silam,

                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:07:59 :::

                                   2

    Assistant Regional Transport Officer,

    Having Office at RTO, Mumbai (W),

    111/D, Ambivli Village,

    Near Four Bungalow,

    Lokhandwala Complex,

    Opp. Manish Nagar,

    Andheri (West),

    Mumbai 400 053

    residing at S-1/603,

    Sundar Nagar,

    S.V.Road, Malad (West),

    Mumbai 400 064                                           ...Respondent

    Mr. A.B.Vagyani for Petitioner.

    Mr. R.K.Mendadkar for the Respondent

                             CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR &

                                        R.Y.GANOO, JJ.

th JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 27 July, 2011.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd February, 2012.

JUDGMENT (Per R.Y.Ganoo, J.).

1. These two petitions can be decided by common order, as order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No.142 of 2010 is challenged by both the petitioners.

2. The petitioner in writ petition No.4974 of 2011 is employee of Government of Maharashtra and he shall hereafter be referred to as Mr. Silam. The writ petition No.3836 of 2011 is filed by the State of Maharashtra and hence petitioner in writ petition No.3836 of 2011 shall be referred to as State of Maharashtra.

3. The circumstances under which these two petitions came to be filed are as under:

Mr. Silam was appointed as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles on 19.9.1979 under reserve category of Schedule Tribe. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles on 20.9.1983. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer on 20.7.1997. After joining service on 19.7.1979, the State of Maharashtra referred his caste certificate as belonging to Mannervarlu Schedule Tribe for verification on 24.2.2003. The petitioner appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and he did not contest his tribe claim before the concerned Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee on account of issuance of G.R. bearing No. BCC 1094/M.No.68/94/16B dated 15.6.1995. Consequently, an Order was issued by the said Committee on 10.6.2009 thereby invalidating the claim of Mr.Silam that he belonged to Mannervarlu Schedule Tribe.

4. According to Mr.Silam, he claimed to be a person belonging to Telugu Phulmali Caste which was recognized as Special Backward Category and he obtained a certificate in that behalf from the Competent Officer by Order dated 6.12.2004. His Caste Certificate as belonging to Special Backward Caste was referred to concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation and said committee validated the same by its Order dated 5.8.2008.

5. According to Mr.Silam, after securing the Caste Certificate as belonging to Special Backward Class duly validated, he made a representation to the State of Maharashtra seeking benefit of aforesaid G.R. Dated 15.6.1995 and G.R. bearing NO.BCC-202/M.No.93/04/16-B dated 30.6.2004. According to Mr.Silam, on account of the developments as mentioned aforesaid and on account of the aforesaid two G.R's dated 15.6.1995 and 30.6.2004, the services of Mr.Silam were protected. Mr.Silam claims that without considering his representation made to the State ofMaharashtra, being representation dated 5.1.2010, the State of Maharashtra passed an order dated 15.2.2010 thereby reverting him to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

6. Being aggrieved by this order dated 15.2.2010, passed by the State of Maharashtra, Mr.Silam filed O.A.No.142 of 2010 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and prayed that order dated 15.2.2010 be declared as invalid and consequential reliefs be granted to him.

7. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, (For short Tribunal) decided the aforesaid O.A.No.142 of 2010 by its judgment dated 20.9.2010 and set aside the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the State of Maharashtra and granted liberty to the State of Maharashtra to take action against Mr.Silam according to law, as a result of his Caste Certificate being invalidated. So far as granting of deemed date it was ordered that the State of Maharashtra shall complete the said process within a period of three months from the date of order i.e. 20.9.2010.

8. A perusal of the petition filed by Mr.Silam shows that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal by which the State of Maharashtra was given liberty to take action against Mr.Silam according to law as a result of his Caste Certificate being invalidated.

Mr.Silam has challenged this portion of the order dated 20.9.2010.

9. The State of Maharashtra felt aggrieved on account of the order dated 15.2.2010, passed by the Tribunal. The said order is challenged.

10.We have heard learned Advocate Mr. R.K.Mendadkar on behalf of Mr.Silam and Mr. A.B.Vagyani, learned AGP on behalf of State of Maharashtra in both these petitions.

11.Learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar had submitted that the petitioner was granted certificate stating that he belongs to Special Backward Category i.e. Telgu Phulmali Caste by Order dated 6.12.2004 and on account of the G.Rs. Dated 15.6.1995 and 30.4.2004 he had given up his claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee concerning his claim that he belongs to Mannervarlu Schedule Tribe. Learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar had submitted that Mr.Silam was protected by the aforesaid two G.Rs and he could not have been reverted to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. According to learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar, Mr. Silam was reverted because his Caste Certificate was invalidated and not for any misconduct as such. He submitted that the State of Maharashtra erred in interpreting the effect of the G.R. dated 15.6.1995 as also G.R. dated 30.6.2004 and wrongly reverted Mr. Silam to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

Learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar had submitted that the liberty granted by the Tribunal to the State of Maharashtra to take action against Mr.Silam was blanket liberty and the State of Maharashtra would misuse the same to the prejudice of Mr. Silam. It was also contended by learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar that the case of Mr. Silam is covered by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others v. Sanjay K. Nimje reported in 2007(3) MLJ 795. Learned Advocate Mr.Mendadkar had relied upon the judgment in Writ Petition No.194 of 2003 Kumari Bhamini Sadashiv Thanekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.8.2003. By relying upon this judgment it was submitted by Mr.Mendadkar that as services of Mr. Silam are protected by G.R. dated 15.6.1995, the provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 namely Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (For short Act of 2000) would not be applicable. Learned Advocate Mr. Mendadkar had therefore submitted that the petition be made absolute.

12.Learned Advocate Mr. Vagyani, appearing on behalf of the State had opposed the submission of Mr. Mendadkar. He had drawn our attention to the fact that Mr. Silam had secured job as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles on 19.9.1979 by claiming that he belonged to Schedule Tribe Mannervarlu and that his caste claim was invalidated on 10.6.2009. According to Mr. Vagyani, said invalidation of the caste claim would relate back and the Court will have to hold that on the date when Mr. Silam joined the services as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, in the reserve category he was not entitled to get appointment. Mr. Vagyani had submitted that Mr. Silam secured certificate as belonging to Special Backward Category namely Telgu Phulmali caste on 6.12.2004 and the said claim was validated on 5.8.2008. Mr. Vagyani had submitted that on noticing the fact that Mr.Silam's caste claim as belonging to Schedule Tribe came to an end on account of Order dated 10.6.2009, the State of Maharashtra in terms of G.R. dated 12.10.1993 bearing No. CDR/1093/1077/M.No.23/93, Eleven, Mantralaya, decided to take action against Mr. Silam and passed an order dated 15.2.2010 reverting Mr. Silam to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. It was submitted by Mr. Vagyani that Mr. Silam was not entitled to the protection of G.R. dated 15.6.1995 as the said G.R. relates to various castes mentioned in the said G.R. and all persons who were appointed in a particular post prior to 15.6.1995 stood protected with reference to their appointments and promotions. According to Mr. Vagyani, because Mr.Silam's Caste Certificate in the category as Schedule Tribe came to be cancelled, the State of Maharashtra was entitled to take action against Mr. Silam and that is how the Order dated 15.2.2010 was passed. So far as the stand of Mr. Silam that he was protected by G.R. dated 30.6.2004, it was submitted by Mr. Vagyani that the promotion of Mr.Silam in the cadre of Inspector of Motor Vehicles having taken place on 20.9.1983, i.e. before 15.6.1995, Mr.Silam was reverted to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles from the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer as he was appointed as Assistant Regional Transport Officer on 30.7.1997.

13.Learned Advocate Mr. Vagyani had submitted that reversion of Mr. Silam as per order dated 15.2.2010 was in consonance with judgment of Supreme Court in the case of District Collector, Vizanagram vs. M. Tripura Sundaridevi 1990(4) SLR 237. Mr.Vagyani had submitted that reversion of Mr.Silam was on account of failure on the part of Mr. Silam getting his caste claim as 'Schedule Tribe' validated by competent committee. It was submitted that Mr. Silam did not belong to Schedule Tribe or Special Backward Class as on 30.7.1997 when he was promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Mr.Vagyani had submitted that the impugned order be set aside and order dated 15.2.2010 be confirmed.

14. We have considered the submissions made by learned advocates on both sides. It would be proper to reproduce the three G.R's. to which reference is made in the present writ petition.

1) G.R. dated 12th October, 1993 Regarding taking action against those Government employee in case of whom it would be subsequently found ` that they were not eligible or qualified for their initial appointment.

Government of Maharashtra Resolution No. CDR-1093/ 1077/M, No. 23/93, Eleven Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. Date 12 October 1993.

Resolution An issue was under the consideration of the Government to take action against the Government Servants, the in connection with the irregularities committed by such Government servants before their appointments. Generally if the Government servants have furnished false information at the time of their appointment, then the concerned department/ office should make use of the provision namely "warning" included in the attestation form, for taking action against them.

Now a question has arisen that if it is subsequently found that a Government Servant was not eligible or qualified for his initial appointment in the Government Service, then whether he could be discharged from the service, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the said points in the case viz. Collector, Viziyanagaram V/s M. Tripu Sundari Devi ( 1990/ (4) S. L.R. 237) and following observations are made.

"Except it, all the concerned should also keep in mind that whenever specific qualification has been mentioned in the advertisement and whenever any appointment has been made by ignoring the same, in such event, such case does not remain limited only to the extent of Appointing Authority and the Appointee. Those persons, who possess the qualification equal or more than the qualification of the appointed person or persons, but such persons have not made applications for want of qualification mentioned in the advertisement, then all such persons are aggrieved persons. In such circumstances, if it has not been clearly mentioned that the qualification (condition) can be relaxed then, to make appointment of a person possessing lower standard of qualification is amounting to a cheating on public. Any court should not involve in allowing to continue such kind of cheating acts".

In pursuance thereof, now, it has been decided that in the case wherein it would be found that any Government employee was not eligible or qualified with prescribed qualification, as per the provisions of Recruitment Rules of the concerned post, for initial appointment in the Government Service or that he had furnished false information or submitted false certificate for getting appointment, such employee should not be allowed to remain in the service . If such employee is on probation or is a temporary Government employee then, he should be discharged from the service / or his services should be terminated. If he is substantive ( permanent ) Government employee then Departmental enquiry, as prescribed in Rule 8 of Maharashtra Civil Services ( Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1979, should be made against him and if the charges are proved then such Government employee should be removed or dismissed from the service. However, under any circumstances, no punishment other than this should be imposed.

3. On account of taking kind of action of discharge from service, termination from service, removal or dismissal from service, the Government's powers to file prosecution against such Government employee in the court, will not be effected.

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.

A.G. Mandpe, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra General Administration Department

2) G.R. of 15th June, 1995 Reservation for Special Backward Category in Government and Semi Government Services ........................

Government of Maharashtra General Administration Department, Government Resolution No. BCC-1094/M.No.68/94/16-B Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032, dated 15th June, 1995 Read :-

1. Government Resolution, G.A.D.No.BCC-1094/M.

No.68/94/16B, dated 8 December, 1994.

2. Government Resolution, G.A.D.No.BCC=1094/M. No.68/94/16B, dated 2 January 1995.

3. Government Resolution, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department No.CBC-1404/M.No.236/BCC-5, dated 7 December 1994.

4. Government Resolution, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department No,CBC-1494/M.No.236/BCC-5, dated 13 June 1995.

Government Resolution :- Except the community particularly declared as Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, in the State, considering the demand from some other caste and tribes over the backwardness from the view point of social, economical and educational for giving special concession (relief), below mentioned caste had been declared as "Special Backward Category" under the Government Resolution No.CBC-1404/M.No.

236/BCC-5, dated 7 December 1994 of Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department.

          Sr. No.     Name of the Caste

              1.      Govari Caste

              2.      Mul Caste

3. 1) Koshti, 2) Halba Koshti, 3) Halba Caste, 4) Sali

5) Lad Koshti, 6) Gadhewal Koshti, 7) Deshkar,

8) Salewar, 9) Padmashali, 10) Dewang,

11) Kachi Bandhe 12) Patvis, 13) Satsale, 14) Sade,

15) Jainkoshti

4. 1) Koli, Similar Caste, 2) Machchhimar Koli,

3) Ahir Koli 5) Khandeshi Koli, 5) Pankoli,

6) Christian Koli 7) Chumbale Koli,

8) Panbhare Koli,9) Suryavanshi Koli, 10) Mangela Koli

11) Sonkoli, 12) Vaiti Koli, 13) Kharvi 14) Koli doing the dangar farming, from Nasik, Dhule and Jalgaon districts.

5. 1) Munnewar 2) Munnurwar 3) Munnur

4) Telgu Munnur 5) Munnurwar Telgu

6) Munnurkapu, 7) Kapewar, 8) Telgu Kapewar,

9) Munnarwad 10) Telgu Phulmali.

2) Pursuant to which under the Government Resolution No.G.A.D.No.BCC-1094/M. No.68/94/16B, dated 8 December, 1994 of this Department 2% reservation was kept for "Special Backward Category". By the said Government Resolution, it was ordered that the said orders shall also be applicable to the service of Government, Semi Government as well as Boards, Municipal Corporations, Zilla Parishads, Co-operative Banks, Government Undertakings and Educational Institutions etc. The said Government Resolution was stayed under the Government Resolution G.A.D.No.BCC=1094/M.

No.68/94/16B, dated 2 January 1995.

3) Now, the stay granted by the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 2nd January 1995 is vacated. Moreover, now the amendment is made as "Koli Not included in the Schedule Tribe" in place of "Koli doing the danger farming from Nasik, Dhule and Jalgaon District''s mentioned at the aforesaid No.4(14).

4) The reservation granted to the above mentioned "Special Backward Category" shall be admissible for a direct recruitment and promotion.

Moreover, creamy layer principal shall not be applicable to this category. Those persons from this category who have already secured promotion by joining the Government, Semi Government Service on the basis of the Schedule Tribe Certificate, such person should not be demoted or removed from the service.

5) In 200 point roster prescribed in respect of recruitment in Government service, 2 percent reservation for Special Backward Category is shown and revised 200 point roster is issued separately.

6) The Ministerial Department should bring these orders to the notice of departmental heads and head of Offices under their control.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, Sd/-

S.G.Kale Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

3. G.R. dated 30.6.2004.

Regarding giving protection to Non-

Adivasi (Tribal) Officers/ employees, who have been recruited/ promoted to the reserved posts of Scheduled Tribe in the Government/ Semi -

Government Service...................

Government of Maharashtra General Administration Department Government Resolution Number - BCC - 2002/ M.No. 93/ 04/ 16- B, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

Date:- 30th June 2004.

Reference:- (1) Government Resolution, General Administration -

BCC 1094/ M. No. 68/ 94/16 B, Dated 8th December 1994.

(2) Government Resolution, General Administration Department - BCC 1094/ M. No. 68/94/16 - B, Dated 2nd January, 1995.

(3) Government Resolution, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs & Sports Department, Number CBC 1494/ M. No. 236, BCC

- 5, Dated 7th December 1994.

(4) Government Resolution, Social Welfare Cultural Affairs & Sports Department, Number CBC 1494/ M. No. 236/ BCC- 5, Dated 13th June 1995.

(5) Government Resolution, General Administration Department - BCC 1094/ M. No. 68/ 14/ 16-B, Date 15th June 1995.

(6) Government Resolution, General Administration Department - BCC 1094/ M. No. 68/94/16-B, Date 27th May 2002.

Government Resolution:-

In supersession of the General Administration Department, Government Resolution Number BCC 1094/ M. No. 68/98/16-B dated 27th May 2002, pertaining to giving protection to the officers/ employees in the Government/ Semi Government Service, who have been recruited, promoted on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, on the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe, before the date 15th June 1995, the Government issues revised order as follows:-

(A) Those non-Adivasi (Tribal) persons, who have secured service or promotion in the Government or Semi Government Service, prior to the date 15th June 1995, on the posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe, should not be removed from the Service or should not be demoted. They should be shown in the category for which they belong to, hereafter, benefits of the reservation of the respective category, shall be admissible to them. The posts which are fallen vacant in such manner, should be filled up from the Adivasi Community.

(B) The aforesaid protection shall be admissible only to those officers/ employees, who were appointed prior to the date 15th June, 1995.

(C) The seniority of the non Adivasi Officers/ employees, who have been protected as aforesaid, should be considered as (from) 15th June, 1995.

2. These Orders shall also be applicable to the Officers/ employees of the Government / Semi Government Services as well as in the Boards/ Corporations, Municipalities/ Municipal Corporations, Government Undertakings, Aided Institutions, Universities, Co-

operative Societies, Educational Aided Institutions and others.

3. The Ministerial Departments should immediately bring the aforesaid Orders to the notice of Heads of Offices/ Heads of Departments under their control.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, Sd/-

(U.P.S. Madan) Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

15.Mr. Silam claimed the job with the State of Maharashtra as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles on 19.9.1979 claiming to be a member of Schedule Tribe. The claim of Mr. Silam that he was belonging to Schedule Tribe came to be ultimately invalidated on 10.6.2009. Mr. Silam, later on in 2004 claimed status as a person belonging to Special Backward Category on 6.12.2004 and his claim that he belongs to Special Backward Category as Telgu Phulmali Caste was validated by the Competent Authority on 5.8.2008.

16.A reading of the G.R. dated 15.6.1995 shows that persons who belonged to various castes set out in the said G.R. dated 15.6.1995 were granted status as belonging to Special Backward Class. Those persons from the aforesaid category namely Special Backward Class who had already secured promotion by joining the Government, Semi Government service on the basis of Schedule Tribe Certificate were not be demoted or removed from the service. Mr. Silam joined the service as 'Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles' by claiming benefit as belonging to Schedule Tribe. Mr. Silam's caste claim as belonging to Schedule Tribe would not sustain as per order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the committee on account of the withdrawal of such claim by Mr. Silam. On reading the G.R. of 15.06.1995 we are of the view that the stand taken by Mr. Silam that he is protected by the said G.R. cannot be accepted as the initial appointment of Mr. Silam was on the basis of his claim that he belonged to the Schedule Tribe.

17.We have also perused the G.R. dated 20.06.2004. The argument advanced by Mr. Silam that he is protected by G.R. dated 30.06.2004 also cannot be accepted on the ground that Mr. Silam had secured entry in the Government service by claiming that he belonged to the Schedule Tribe which claim was invalidated by the Schedule Tribe Certificate Committee. Mr. Silam could secure a certificate that he belonged to Special Backward Caste only on 6th December, 2004 and the said claim was validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 8.8.2008. We have considered the effect of G.R. dated 15.06.1995 as also G.R. dated 30.06.2004 and G.R. dated 12.10.1993. We are of the view that since Mr. Silam was not protected by the aforesaid two G.R.s the State of Maharashtra was entitled to take action against Mr. Silam as per G.R. dated 12.10.1993. Notably, the G.R. dated 12.10.193 is founded on the decision of the Apex Court inDistrict Collector, Vizanagram vs. M.

Tripura Sundaridevi (1990(4) SLR 237). The validity of the said G.R. is not challenged at all. Besides, the said G.R. has not been superceded by the Government so far. Thus the State of Maharashtra could take action as per Rule 8 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1979. We have noticed that the State of Maharashtra took a stand that because Mr. Silam was promoted to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer on 30.07.1997, he should be reverted to earlier post held by him i.e. the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra passed the Order dated 15.2.2010.

18.We are therefore inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned A.G.P. Mr. Vagyani as regards reversion of Mr. Silam from the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer to the Post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. Instead of taking action of removal or dismissal of service as contemplated in G.R. dated 12.10.1993, the State of Maharashtra thought of issuing an order of reversion. The State of Maharashtra in a way by passing the order dated 15.02.2010 has taken a lenient view of the matter.

19.It was argued on behalf of Mr. Silam that his case is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (Supra). The Supreme Court by the said judgment in terms has observed that once a person became dis-entitled to obtain the benefit of G.R. dated 15.06.1995, the Act of 2000 will apply in his case. As Mr. Silam is not protected by G.R. dated 15.6.1995 the State of Maharashtra was entitled to take action as per the Act of 2000. As indicated earlier, the State of Maharashtra took a lenient view and Mr. Silam was reverted to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

20.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, we hold that no interference is required in the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the State of Maharashtra reverting Mr. Silam to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

21.The Tribunal has by its judgment dated 20th September, 2010 set aside the Order dated 15.02.2010 and has directed the State of Maharashtra to proceed against Mr. Silam according to law. It is to be noted that though it was open for the State of Maharashtra to proceed against Mr. Silam as per G.R. dated 12.10.1993, for dismissal or removal from service, the State of Maharashtra reverted Mr. Silam as mentioned aforesaid. We are of the view that if the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed it would go contrary to the penalty already imposed on Mr. Silam by the State of Maharashtra.

By passing impugned order, the State of Maharashtra has made its intention clear that Mr. Silam's services should not be dismissed or he should not be removed from service.

22.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Tribunal directing the State of Maharashtra to take action against Mr. Silam according to the provisions of law. We are inclined to confirm the order passed by the State of Maharashtra dated 15.02.2010, as also dismiss the application filed by Mr. Silam before the Tribunal i.e. O.A.No.142 of 2010.

23.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, both the petitions are disposed of by passing the following order.

ORDER i. The Order dated 20.09.2010 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.142 of 2010 directing the State of Maharashtra to take action in accordance with law against Mr. Silam, the Petitioner in Petition No.4974 of 2011 is quashed and set aside.

ii. O.A. No.142 of 2010 filed by Mr. Silam is dismissed.

Iii. The Petition No.3836 of 2011 filed by the State of Maharashtra is made absolute by confirming order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the State of Maharashtra reverting Mr. Silam to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles.

         iv.    There shall be no order as to costs.

    (R.Y.GANOO, J.)                           (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)