1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.3240 of 2008 (The Secretary, Revenue Deptt. Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vasant Ambadas Pande and Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2008. Heard Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Petitioners. This petition is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dt. 7.4.2006 whereby the Original Application No.691 of 1992 filed by father of respondent (legal representative) came to be allowed. The question which needs consideration in the present petition is whether it was in cumbent on the 2 part of the Appellate Authority to conduct an enquiry u/s.8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) since the Appellate Authority has enhanced penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in view of Rule 23 of the Rules. The Additional Government Pleader has submitted that, in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has conducted an enquiry u/s. 8 of the Rules and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement which is a major punishment under rule 5 of the Rules. It is, therefore, contended that, in such a situation, it was not necessary for the Appellate Authority to once again conduct enquiry under Rule 8 and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard, therefore, is not sustainable in law nor is consistent with the Scheme of Rule 23 of the Rules. Considered the contentions. Perused the provisions of Rule 23. It 3 is nodoubt true that sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 permits the Appellate Authority to impose enhanced penalty than the one imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, clause (iii) of proviso requires the Appellate Authority to conduct enquiry under Rule 8 if the Appellate Authority proposes to impose enhanced penalty than the one imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellate Authority has imposed enhanced penalty than the one imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without conducting enquiry under Rule 8. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard is sustainable in law. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj