MUMBAI: The
Maharashtra Administration Tribunal
(MAT) overturned the termination order of a
police patil
in Miraj, Sangli, who was held responsible for
negligence
and dereliction of duty following the suicide of nine family members due to superstitious activities. The tragic incident occurred on June 20, when the Vhanmore family consumed poisonous substances after falling victim to a fraudulent scheme involving tantriks who promised hidden treasures in exchange for a Rs 1 crore loan.
The police arrested 19 individuals, including the police patil, Mahadeo Sakpal, who later obtained anticipatory bail from the session court.
Medha Gadgil, a member of MAT, directed the
reinstatement
of Sakpal within two months, emphasizing that the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) should have followed proper procedures, including issuing a show cause notice, conducting Departmental Enquiries (DE), filing a charge sheet, and adhering to the MCS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979. These rules ensure that the accused is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves through written statements, evidence recording, cross-examination, and examination of defense witnesses.
Sakpal’s lawyer, Arvind Bandiwadekar, argued that the SDO had terminated Sakpal’s services on July 11, 2022, without issuing a show cause notice or granting him a hearing. Despite Sakpal’s appeal, the SDO rejected it. Bandiwadekar also highlighted that after a thorough investigation, the Sangli police found no evidence against Sakpal and dropped the proceedings, even removing his name from the chargesheet.
The authorities pointed out that during Sakpal’s tenure as Police Patil since 2015, illegal activities such as black magic, superstition, and fraudulent schemes targeting innocent villagers were prevalent. However, Sakpal failed to inform his superiors or the respondents about these activities. The role of a Police Patil is crucial in monitoring and reporting suspicious activities in the village, serving as a link between the village and the Police Department. The authorities argued that Sakpal was careless and failed to perform his duties properly.
In his defense, Sakpal claimed that he was unaware of the deceased family’s financial transactions and emphasized his long service as a Police Patil since 2006.
The court order acknowledged the importance of the Police Patil’s role and the apparent neglect on Sakpal’s part. However, it also noted that the SDO had terminated Sakpal’s services without following the proper DE procedure as outlined in the MCS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1979. Given the serious nature of the neglect charges, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing the accused with an opportunity to be heard. The court criticized the SDO for terminating Sakpal’s services without conducting a proper DE as required by law.
