:1: :1: :1: 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2009 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2009 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Petitioners Vs. Kumari Neves Liberata Fernandes & Ors .. Respondents. Mrs S.S.Bhende,AGP, for the petitioners.-State. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 05.02.2009. DATE : 05.02.2009. DATE : 05.02.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs Bhende, learned AGP, for the pettioners. 2. While allowing Original Application No.586 of 2007 filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioners, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, "MAT") has directed an enquiry as against the petitioners-original respondent nos. 3 to 6 and the officers who filed the affidavit on behalf of respondent nos 5 and 6, and directed them to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.1. So far as the main relief, which has been granted by the MAT in favour of respondent no.1 - original applicant is concerned, there is no challenge to the said part of the order of the MAT, thereby, that part of the order has been acquiesced by the petitioners and it has attained a finality as against the petitioners. The :2: :2: :2: MAT has observed that the present case indicates how negligently the officers holding the rank of Director, Deputy Director of Health services had acted, which has caused not only monetary loss to the applicant/respondent no.1, but she has suffered mental agony and harassment for no fault of her and, therefore, the applicant/respondent no.1 was compelled to knock the doors of the Tribunal. As a result of the acquiescence of the said order in favour of respondent no.1, all these observations are justified and, therefore, one way of doing justice is to grant a relief in favour of the person who has approached the court, namely respondent no.1. But the MAT had also looked into that aspect that it was respondent nos.2 to 6, who were negligent and who had harassed respondent no.1 - original applicant and had made respondent no.1 to run pillar to post and, therefore, in a departmental hierarchy the superiors are expected to administer the department and also they are expected to be sympathetic towards the subordinate staff as they are expected to get the work done from them. They are equally the guardians of subordinate staff. But it is found by the Tribunal that instead of discharging the said duties as superiors, the conduct of the superiors is of such nature which requires to be dealt with in :3: :3: :3: departmental enquiry and requires costs to be imposed. The MAT has imposed costs on the respondents and directed an enquiry against them. The moment the enquiry is directed and the costs has been imposed, now the wisdom has drawn upon the petitioners to acquiesce the order in favour of respondent no.1 but they are trying to save their own skin from their involvement in the matter, as has been noticed by the MAT. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State which will persuade us to say that the MAT has passed an unjust order as against the petitioners. The petition deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)