1 WRIT PETITION NO.4869 OF 2009 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4869 OF 2009 Shri Popatrao K Diwale : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. Mr. A S Gadre for the Petitioner. Mr. V S Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 22nd July 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 land 2. 2 We do not find any substance in the above Petition which is filed by the Petitioner for challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. By the said order the Tribunal has upheld the punishment of withholding of two increments and set aside the order recovery. Paras 12 and 13 of the order of the Tribunal are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under :- “12. However, having regard to the fact that there are serious allegations against the applicants about negligence and breach of orders while ordering the purchase of goods for Ashram School, when in fact that much quantity was not required as such, receiving of goods, the Government has suffered a loss and that loss is required to be recovered. But that could be done only after the applicants are served with proper notice. For the above reasons, the order of imposing penalty of recovery of amount of loss caused to the Government, from the applicants and the order of the Appellate Authority is required to be declared as illegal and inoperative. 2 WRIT PETITION NO.4869 OF 2009 13. Therefore, while setting aside the order of recovery we permit the Disciplinary Authority to give notice to the applicants about proposed penalty. Along with notice, the copy of reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the findings thereon, be sent to them and after the explanation from the applicants, appropriate order be passed. It is stated by Shri Gadre, learned advocate that excess amount that is over and above Rs.12,038/- is by now recovered from the applicant Shri Jagdale. As such, this aspect has to be considered by the disciplinary authority, when it considers the reply submitted by the applicant, pursuant to the notice that will be issued to the applicant. The aspect of receipt of the excess amount from the applicant Shri Jagdale should also be considered and if any excess amount is recovered, it is ordered that, the same shall be returned to Shri Jagdale by the State Government or Disciplinary Authority.” The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of the aspect of recovery of the amount but the Tribunal confirmed the order of withholding of two increments. 3 We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. This is not a case where this Court would like to interfere with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 277. 4 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J] 3 WRIT PETITION NO.4869 OF 2009