IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2007 Dada S/o. Krishnaji Moondhare ..Petitioner. V/s. The District & Sessions Judge cum Disciplinary Authority & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.S.K.Shinde for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:- 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21/6/2001 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 1/4/2002. 2. The petitioner appointed in the year 1985 was working as a Bailiff within the Buldhana District. A Memorandum of charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13th May, 1999 levelling 7 charges against the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had not served the warrants and summons to the satisfaction of the - = : 2 : = - learned District & Sessions Judge cum Disciplinary Authority, Buldhana on 7/11/1997, 27/11/2997, 11/2/1998 20/7/1998 and 17/9/1998. Thereupon, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. On completion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of the report, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the District & Sessions Judge cum Disciplinary Authority, Buldhana issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, by an order dated 21st June, 2001 the District & Sessions Judge cum Disciplinary Authority, Buldhana upheld the finding of the Enquiry Officer and inflicted the punishment of removal from service with effect from 21/6/2001. Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.S.K.Shinde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the - = : 3 : = - petitioner had clean, unblemished and excellent service of nearly 17 years, the authorities ought to have taken a lenient view and ought not to have inflicted major punishment of removal from service. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4. We see no merit in the above contentions. On perusal of the orders impugned in the petition it is seen that the conduct of the petitioner clearly showed lack of devotion to duty. Moreover, there is a clear finding recorded to the effect that in the past also the petitioner was found to avoid performing his duties and he was warned from time to time whenever adverse remarks were made against him. In spite of the warning given, if there is no improvement, no fault can be found with the orders impugned in the petition. In these circumstances, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to interfere with the orders impugned in the petition by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails. The Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) - = : 4 : = - (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)