1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2009 Dilip Tupe .. Petitioner Versus The Principal St.Xavier’s Institute of Education & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Ashok Kotangle with Arun Nagarjun i/b. Vishnu Chaudhari for petitioner Mr.Manoj Gujar i/b. C.R.Naidu & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Mugdha Jadhav A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th April 2009. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel. Perused the petition and annexures thereto so also the judgement under challenge. Having perused the same, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions of petitioner either with regard to the findings recorded during the enquiry nor on the proportionality of the punishment. 2 2. The Tribunal has considered both aspects. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner appellant raised only technical pleas to challenge the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Management after an enquiry. It was alleged that the petitioner did not deposit various amounts received by him. The amounts received were kept by the petitioner with him for a period ranging from 3 days to 104 days. The amounts also range from Rs.540/- to Rs.89,000/-. The amounts were redeposited by the petitioner only after an explanation was called for. Thus the charge was serious and i.e. Misappropriation of college fund. It is in such circumstances that the management decided to impose this penalty and conducted an enquiry at which full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The Tribunal after perusal of the entire record of enquiry concluded that the findings of enquiry officer cannot be termed as perverse. Apart from 3 the oral evidence, there is ample documentary evidence which has been brought on record. All technical pleas/ grounds also have been dealt with and by adverting to the relevant regulations in the Standard Code, the Tribunal has arrived at an conclusion that there is no illegality in the order of dismissal. 3. It is contended by Mr.Kotangale that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of proportionality of punishment. This is a case where the petitioner has completed 20 years of service and the Tribunal could have awarded lesser punishment. More so, when the amounts have been deposited. 4. The argument is that the Tribunal should be directed to re-examine the aspect of proportionality of punishment and if thought fit, impose a lesser punishment in terms of the powers conferred upon it while disposing of an appeal of 4 the employee. Reliance was placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2006 (4) All M.R. 562 (Manohar Changdeorao Dhande Vs. Jeevan Vikas Education Society, Siraspeth Nagpur & Ors). 5. There is no merit in this contention either. Before the Tribunal a specific plea was raised that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. In paras 25 and 26 of the order under challenge, the learned Presiding Officer, who is a retired Judge of this Court, has considered rival submissions. The learned Presiding Officer was of the opinion that it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate. It is a case of misappropriation of funds of Educational Institution. Merely because the employee has brought back the same or deposited it does not mean that a lesser punishment should be imposed 5 in this case. The Tribunal has rightly held that the College Authorities placed both, faith and Trust in the petitioner for handling the funds. In these circumstances, the College Authorities could not be said to have erred in imposing the major penalty of dismissal, is the conclusion recorded by the Presiding Officer. 6. I do not see any error apparent on the face of record nor any perversity in the finding of Tribunal on the aspect of proportionality of punishment either. Thus, the Tribunal has dealt with appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law consistent with the powers conferred upon it. After fully appreciating the rival contentions it has found no merit in the appeal. I do not see any reason to take a different view in my limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not a Court of further appeal nor can I reappraise and reappreciate the conclusions and findings. In 6 the result, the petition fails. 7. At this stage Mr.Kotangale prays that the Management be directed to release the terminal dues as admissible to the petitioner. Needless to state that if any amount is due and payable to the petitioner in terms of Service Rules and Regulations, the same shall be released as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks from today. Petition dismissed in the above terms. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)