1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3186 OF 1998. Bhagwan S/o Narhar Kulkarni, Age 61 years, Occ.Pensioner, R/o Old Ausa Road, Latur, Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra in Rural Development Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Zilla Parishad, Laltur, through Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Latur. 3. Adidtional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.07.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner takes exception to the part of the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, dated 20.4.1996 and the order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 12.12.1996, directing recovery of Rs.14,800/- (Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred) from the petitioner. 2. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of various charges. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty and Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment against which the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad partly allowed the said appeal and as far as misappropriated amount is concerned, passed an order that the misappropriated amount be finally worked out and recovered separately from the petitioner. Thereafter, the Department worked out the said amount and claimed recovery of Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand) from the petitioner. 3 3. Mr.S.K.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact he is exonerated from all these charges. Operative part of the order regarding misappropriated amount to be worked out is contrary to the body of the judgment. On going through the body of the judgment, it appears that the Addl.Commissioner has observed that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority for recovery of the alleged misappropriated amount was not sustainable on account of the fact that it was too vague. The misappropriated amount ought to have been determined and thereafter only recovery should have been ordered. In light of those observations, the Additional Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 4. This Court would not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence, unless it is found that the findings are perverse and without record. Nothing of that sort appears. The amount is also recovered from the petitioner. In light of the same, we do not 4 find any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp318698