1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1491/2009 Mrs.Utkarsha Mahendra Dhimate .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The Hon’ble Registrar (General) High Court of Judicature at Bombay and others. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri R.F.Totala,Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. Shri V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondent no.3-State. .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 19/04/2010 2 ORAL ORDER : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner at the crucial time was working as Junior Clerk at Rahuri Court, District Ahmednagar. A charge sheet came to be issued to her. The charge was that she was found coming late to the office for 42 times during the period from 13/3/2003 to 25/1/2006. It was also the charge that she was heard by the concerned Civil Judge Mr.N.S.Khose saying “ She would lodge false complaint against the Judge.” Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner filed written statement. Mr.N.G.Gimekar,Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He recorded statements of Mrs.S.V.Agate,Assistant Superintendent and the then Civil Judge Shri N.S.Khose. Statement of delinquent was also recorded. On 28/5/2007, enquiry report was submitted to the District Judge. The District Judge by an order dated 9/8/2007 held the petitioner guilty of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet as per provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 and as per Rule 5-1(4) of the M.C.S. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979, three future annual increments were directed to be stopped permanently under the orders passed by Disciplinary Officer/Principal District Judge,Ahmednagar. The petitioner preferred Appeal to the Administrative Committee of the High Court. By an order dated 3 2/5/2008, the Administrative Committee dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner observing that there is no procedural lacuna. The principles of natural justice were complied with based upon the material available. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment as recorded. There is nothing to show that the enquiry was biased. The Committee considered the conduct of the petitioner, more particularly the threatening utterances used against the concerned Judge to implicate him in false matter. The committee considered these utterances as very serious and unbecoming of an employee, still the Administrative Committee took a lenient view and modified the order of punishment as follows : “The appellant’s next three annual increments to be withheld for seven years instead of permanent withholding as ordered”. 3] The petitioner was still dissatisfied and this Petition was preferred before this Court. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner in substance contended that false charge has been levelled against the petitioner. The Assistant Superintendent was against the petitioner, he deliberately created false record of petitioner’s late coming. The petitioner did not use threatening language against the Judge . The learned counsel submitted that the punishment is harsh. Petitioner was serving since so many years. 5] Affidavit in reply has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 4 discussing minutely pros and cons of the case and explanation has been given, justifying the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 6] Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was not befitting the employee of a Court making such serious utterances against the Presiding Officer. There is no case that the Judge had any malice against the employee. Absolute fairness and transparency was shown to the petitioner by providing opportunity while deciding the matter. The concerned Judge himself was cross examined by the petitioner. The Judge had maintained the stand throughout. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that attending office late for 42 times, cannot be a matter of misunderstanding and in case if some higher officer was against the petitioner as alleged, then the petitioner ought to have taken immediate remedial steps. 7] We have considered the submissions advanced. We too take the utterances used by the petitioner against the concerned Judge, seriously. The conduct of the petitioner is deprecated on this ground. The petitioner’s coming late to office 42 times, is also objectionable. The reasons put forth against such charge are not convincing. We find that leniency has been shown by the Administrative Committee in the Appeal filed by the petitioner. 8] We do not find any material to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No 5 further interference is required to be called for by this Court. There is no merit in the Petition. Petition is dismissed with costs. [N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] [NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/wp3101-07