1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.347/2011 in W.P. No.1721/2011 (D) ( The General Manager (Telecom), Telecom Bhavan & another ..V/s.. Zarir s/o Pesi Mawalwala and others) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, Adv. for petitioners. Mr. P.D. Meghe, Adv. for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 3.10.2011. The appellant issued an order of simple termination against the respondent. Admittedly, the acts of the respondent were not a mere reason for the termination but the foundation of the termination order was a charge of negligence against the respondent who was found guilty of being negligent in looking after the vehicle from which two laptops were stolen. Admittedly, the respondent has not been charged with theft but only of negligence. To support its proposed action the appellants even held an inquiry and admittedly the respondent was not allowed to participate in the sense he was not allowed to cross examine the 2 witnesses produced by the appellant. In a reference, C.G.I.T. held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement since the order of termination of service should have been passed with a proper inquiry. This order of the C.G.I.T. has been upheld by learned single Judge. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of learned single Judge is not liable to be interfered with particularly since learned single Judge has not directed regularization of the respondent’s services nor has the respondent been granted any back wages. The instant appeal is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.