(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11409 OF 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, MS, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director General of Police, MS, Mumbai. .. Petitioners. 3. The Commissioner of Police, (Original Aurangabad City, Aurangabad. respondents) versus Bapusaheb s/o. Uttamrao Palve, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Plot No.58, Gurukul Society, .. Respondent Pipeline Road, Savedi, (Original Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. applicant) ....................... Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioner / State is raising exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 783/2008, thereby allowing the application tendered by the respondent. 2. The order of dismissal dated 30-9-2008 was subjected to challenge before the Tribunal, at the instance of employee. It was the contention of the employee, that the order of dismissal has been passed without observing the principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. Considering the contentions raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the application, thereby directing quashment of order of dismissal. The State was also given opporturnity to initiate regular departmental inquiry and to take appropriate action after observing the procedure prescribed under law. 3. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we do (3) not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for causing interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11409