1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2197 OF 1997 1 Ramchandra s/o Maroti Chavan, since deceased, through his heirs and legal representatives: 1-A Smt.Lata Ramchandra Chavan, age: 52 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Wambori, Tilak Chowk, Tq.Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 1-B Mrs.Anita Sanjay Gayake, age: 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 1-C Mrs.Sunita Dnyaneshwar Lokhande, age: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o as above. 1-D Mrs.Sangita Somnath Wagh, age: 23 years, Occ: Household, R/o Nepti (Nalegaon), Tq. And District Ahmednagar. 1-E Mrs.Manisha Anil Sonawane, age: 22 years, Occ: Household, R/o Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 1-F Ganesh Ramchandra Chavan, age: 20 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Wambori, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 1-G Ku.Vanita Ramchandra Chavan, age: 7 years, through her mother and guardian namely petitioner no.1-A. Petitioners Versus 2 1 Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Ware Housing Corporation, 583/B, Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune-37. 2 The State of Maharashtra. Respondents Mr.L.V.Sangit, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Patil, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. For Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 8 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala, J.): 1 The petitioner takes exception to the order of termination issued by Respondent No.1 dated 29.03.1995 and seeks reinstatement in service and back wages. 2 The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Junior Stores Superintendent with Respondent No.1. The petitioner was suspended and departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on account of misconduct on his part. The charge against the petitioner was that with dishonest intention and with a view to misappropriate, he had allowed ten bags more to be delivered to the consignee of Respondent No.1. The departmental enquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty and subsequently, the competent authority has passed order of termination. 3 Shri Sangit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that no provisions were stated as to under what enactment, the 3 departmental enquiry has commenced. He also submitted that petitioner’s service of 28 years is unblemished and further that the punishment, that is imposed, is disproportionate to the act complained. 4 Shri Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, submitted that this was not the first incident when the petitioner was held for misconduct and found to be indulging in such nefarious activities. Earlier also, an amount of Rs.298.82 was recovered from him on account of misappropriation committed by the petitioner in the year 1978. Thereafter, again in the year 1984, the petitioner was punished and his one increment was withheld on account of misbehaviour and intoxication. According to him, in the departmental enquiry proceedings, it has come on record that when the fact of more bags being sent was pointed out to him, he asked the Hamals to keep quiet. 5 The findings of the departmental enquiry cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless the same are arbitrary. The procedure has been followed, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner. No illegality can be found in the departmental enquiry proceedings and in view of the fact that earlier also on two occasions, the petitioner was found guilty of indulging in similar activities, we find that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate. 6 In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged, however, with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp219797 *******