The Bombay High Court overturns disciplinary actions against retired officials Padwal and Lotale, accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts. No substantial evidence found, entitling them to benefits, including arrears of salary and pension. The duo faced no criminal trial despite allegations in the aftermath of the tragic events.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[1993 Serial Blast]Bombay High Court Grants Relief to Retired Central Excise Officials](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-123.png?resize=820%2C615&ssl=1)
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has overturned disciplinary actions against two retired Central Excise officials, S M Padwal and Yashwant Lotale, nearly two decades after they were accused of facilitating the landing of explosives used in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, found no substantial evidence against the duo, thereby entitling them to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and pension, expected to be disbursed within two months.
The 1993 Mumbai blasts, a series of twelve devastating bomb explosions, resulted in the tragic loss of 257 lives and left over 700 injured. Following these events, a special court convicted 100 individuals while acquitting 23. However, Padwal and Lotale, who were implicated in the aftermath, faced no criminal trial over the allegations.
ALSO READ: Advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan Appointed as Judge of Bombay High Court After Two-Year Wait
The High Court’s decision came after scrutinizing the departmental proceedings against the retired superintendents. The bench critically noted:
“Our unequivocal determination is that there exists no evidence in this case. As a result, the disciplinary authority’s decision in issuing the punishment orders based on flawed conclusions is deemed erroneous.”
Central to the court’s findings was the reliance on alleged confessional statements made by accused persons to the police during the investigation. The bench expressed its clear stance, stating:
“In our opinion, this [confessional statements] could not be made basis of inflicting the punishment upon the employees in this case.”
The court highlighted the improper use of these statements in the departmental proceedings, emphasizing that such evidence could not substantiate the charges in a disciplinary context.
Padwal and Lotale were initially accused of accepting bribes to allow the importation of the explosives, alongside charges of failing to maintain integrity and acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The disciplinary actions led to Padwal’s dismissal and Lotale’s forced retirement, with the latter receiving only 65% of his due pension and gratuity.
Both officials contested these decisions, leading to a protracted legal battle. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously overturned Padwal’s dismissal while upholding the sanctions against Lotale. The Union government’s subsequent appeal against Padwal’s relief was dismissed by the High Court, which also ruled in favor of Lotale’s plea.
ALSO READ: Bail Under UAPA|| Delhi High Court Reviews Sharjeel Imam’s Bail Request Over Sedition Charges
The High Court’s judgment underscores a significant principle: mere suspicion cannot replace concrete evidence in departmental proceedings. The bench remarked:
“In the realm of departmental proceedings, it is imperative to underscore that mere suspicion cannot supersede the necessity for substantial proof. The disciplinary authority must meticulously derive its conclusions of guilt from clear and substantiated evidence.”
This decision not only proves Padwal and Lotale innocent but also shows how evidence should be treated in disciplinary cases. The case highlights the importance of having clear proof rather than just suspicions, especially when it comes to people’s lives and careers. The Bombay High Court’s ruling ends a long and tough journey for the two retired officials, finally clearing their names and restoring their rights after almost twenty years of legal challenges.
