-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.8744 OF 2004 NO.8744 OF 2004 NO.8744 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioners v/s Ravendra Mohan Dayal and ors. ...Respondents Mr S.V. Masurkar, AGP for Petitioners. Respondent No.1 present in person. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.H. BHATIA JJ. DATE : 3RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner - State of Maharashtra challenges the order dated 18th June 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No.366 of 2003. That order has been passed on an application filed by the respondent No.1 - Ravendra Mohan Dayal. The C.A.T. has allowed the application and set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent No.1. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this petition are that the petitioner - respondent No.1 herein was Officer of Indian Forest Service. He was assigned to the State of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra held departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Three charges were levelled. The departmental enquiry Officer held that only second part of first charge was proved against the petitioner. Charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was proved in modified form. The Disciplinary Authority, however, held that only second part of charge No.1 was proved against the respondent No.1 and imposed the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of two yeas without cumulative effect. The respondent No.1 preferred appeal against that order. That appal also failed and therefore, he approached the C.A.T. The -3- C.A.T., as observed above, has set aside the order imposing the punishment. Perusal of the order of the C.A.T. shows that it has set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent No.1 for two reasons, firstly that it is impossible to hold, considering the manner in which charge No.1 has been framed, that second part of charge No.1 is proved when admittedly, first part of that charge is not proved and secondly that the Enquiry Officer collected evidence behind the back of the respondent No.1 and relied on it to hold that second part of charge No.1 is proved. We have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner - State of Maharashtra and the respondent No.1 in person. Charge No.1 framed against the respondent No.1 reads as under :- "Shri R.M. Dayal, IFS, while working as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alibag, during the period from 20.6.1987 to 10.7.1991, purchased various articles of stores / tools / equipment for use, but he purchased them without observing the prescribed procedures laid down by Government of Maharashtra in this respect. He incurred expenditure of Rs.22,49,963/- in such purchases." . Admittedly, the Departmental Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have held that the -4- respondent No.1 purchased various articles of stores / tools / equipment for use is not proved. What has been held to have been proved is "but he purchased them without observing prescribed procedure". The finding of the C.A.T. is that if it is not proved that the respondent No.1 purchased various articles, then it is impossible to say that he purchased those articles without following the prescribed procedure. For holding the respondent No.1 guilty of second part of charge No.1 that the purchase was made by him without observing he prescribed procedure, it is obligatory to record a finding that it is the respondent No.1 who made the said purchase. Once it is found that the respondent No.1 did not purchase the articles, it is impossible to say that he did not follow prescribed procedure in purchasing these articles. After having gone through the record and after having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the C.A.T. that part two of charge No.1 cannot be held to be proved after holding that part one of charge No.1 is not proved. We also find that certain material was collected by the Enquiry Officer behind the back of respondent No.1 and was used against him. It clearly was done in breach of principles of natural justice. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition. Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule -5- is discharged with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.H. BHATIA J.)