1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6496 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Ramchandra Soma Mahale .. RESPONDENT Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for petitioners Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent-Sole CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 30th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition at the behest of the petitioner State of Maharashtra which takes exception to an order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No.793 of 2009. 2. Factual matrix of the present petition and the nature of the challenge may be noted thus. The respondent herein came to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent herein who was the accused in the said trial also 2 came to be convicted. On his conviction, it appears that the respondent/accused filed an appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court while entertaining the appeal against the conviction, allowed the application and suspended the order of conviction as well as sentence. The respondent herein came to be dismissed from service on the ground of his conviction for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The power which was exercised was under Article 311 (2) Proviso 2 (a) of the Constitution of India. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the conviction has been stayed, the provisions of Article 311 (2) Proviso 2 (a) of the Constitution of India could not have been invoked as the termination was based purely on the ground of trial. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the original application filed by the respondent herein and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent herein with all consequential benefits. 4. The ground which is urged before us by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that no reasonable opportunity of filing affidavit-in-reply was granted to the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners stand prejudiced. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission as the facts stated in the original application are indeed admitted facts. It is not disputed in this 3 petition before us that the statements of facts made by the respondent in the original application were either incorrect or false. In the absence of that no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioner, if no reasonable opportunity of filing affidavit-in-reply was afforded by the tribunal. The petitioner was represented by a Counsel for hearing of the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/6496.09wp)