The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has dismissed a petition filed by a retired court employee challenging his removal from service after being convicted under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y. G. Khobragade delivered the verdict on 22 August 2025, affirming that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was legally valid.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar, began his service as a sweeper in 1991 at the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Kinwat, and was later promoted to peon. In 2010, he faced multiple criminal cases, including offences under Sections 294, 332, 336, and 353 of the IPC. Although he was initially convicted for assaulting public servants, higher courts later acquitted him of those charges.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging MIDC’s Land Allotments to Educational Institutions
However, in a separate case (Crime No. 87 of 2010), the Judicial Magistrate at Nanded found him guilty of attempting suicide under Section 309 of IPC. Instead of imposing imprisonment, the court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing him to furnish a bond for good behaviour. Despite this relief, the conviction legally stood.
Disciplinary Action
Following the conviction, the disciplinary authority served him a notice and later removed him from service in May 2012, though without disqualifying him from future government employment. His departmental appeal was rejected in February 2020. He then approached the High Court through a writ petition, contending that since he had been acquitted in earlier cases, the removal order was unfair.
The State opposed the plea, stressing that the finding of guilt under Section 309 amounted to moral misconduct and justified disciplinary action.
Court’s Observations
The Bench referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings, particularly T.R. Chellappan and Union of India v. Bakshiram, which held that even when an offender is released on probation, the conviction does not disappear. As the judges noted, “The stigma of conviction remains, and departmental authorities are entitled to act upon it.”
The Court concluded that the removal order was neither illegal nor disproportionate. “The order of removal without disqualification from future employment does not appear perverse or unjustified,” the judges observed while dismissing the petition.
Case Title:- Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
Case Number:- Writ Petition No. 8727 of 2021
