( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 507 OF 2009 Mohd. Zafar Ali Khan s/o Mehmood Ali Khan PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Petitioner in person present. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded and by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and the appeal (DB appeal No. 15/2008), respectively. 2. Heard the petitioner in person and learned ( 2 ) counsel Mr. Panpatte V.S. for the Zilla Parishad. 3. The petitioner was working as a school teacher in a school run by the Zilla Parishad. He has retired from the service w.e.f. 31-08-2002. His due date of retirement was 04-01-2004, but he was allowed to get voluntary retirement benefit. He had obtained an amount of Rs. 57,100/- in the month of April, 1990 by way of advance for prospective medical expenditure required for heart surgery of his wife. Out of the advance amount, Rs. 45,000/- was adjusted vide voucher No. 138 dated 06-05-1996 which was paid to him and rest of the amount was given in cash on 06-05-1996. 4. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause as to why departmental enquiry be not initiated against him. It is pertinent to notice that the allegation was that though he had obtained the amount for heart surgery of his wife, yet, the same was not utilized by him for medical purpose within period of six months and that he had not submitted the medical vouchers. The petitioner’s case was that there was ( 3 ) extension granted to him by the Medical Board and, therefore, advance amount was not utilized. After due enquiry, it was found that he committed the misconduct of obtaining the amount but not utilizing the same. Ultimately, the order is rendered whereby he has been directed to refund the amount alongwith interest. 5. The petitioner’s submission is that the exparte order was passed without hearing him. He further submits that the entire enquiry is vitiated due to bias and vindictiveness. He contended that he has been unnecessarily called upon to pay the amount twice. 6. The petition involves disputed questions of facts. There appears prima facie case to infer that the amount of advance obtained by the petitioner was not lawfully utilized as required and there was no occasion for his wife to undergo the heart surgery. 7. The petitioner urges to consider the record of departmental enquiry. ( 4 ) 8. Considering the nature of petition, I direct that the petitioner shall deposit amount of Rs. 45,000/- in this Court within period of four weeks and then only, the petition will be entertained, otherwise it will be treated as dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp507-09