1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6142 OF 2009 Pramod Baban Dhiwar. ..Petitioner. Vs. The Principal, Bhartiya Jain Sanghatana College of Arts, Science & Commerce and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.V.N.Tayade for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Soni i/by Ram & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 PC : 1 This is a petition filed by the petitioner impugning an order passed by the Presiding Officer on 12.3.2009 in an Appeal No.24/2006. The main contention raised is that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was biased and unfair because the petitioner was not allowed to choose his own defence representative. The finding in this regard is that the applicant had given the names of four different defence representatives and out of them 2 Advocate Surendra Janrao was chosen. However, said Advocate withdrew from the enquiry and then petitioner appointed Mr.M.N.Kamble but this was objected to by the Enquiry Officer as Mr. Kamble was an Enquiry Officer appointed in conducting another enquiry into the working of the respondent- Institution. On such objection being raised, the petitioner himself filed an application for appointing Mr. Tribhuvan as his defence representative and he was so appointed. In view of this fact, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to appoint his defence representative. Second contention is based on the merits of the case. It is contended that it was the prosecution case in the enquiry that the incident of abusing by Principal occurred on 24.3.1999. However, the same could not have occurred because principal Mr. Kankariya who is said to be the offender was not present in the college at Pune 3 because he had to deliver a lecture at a College in Ahemdnagar. He was prosecuted for the same incident under the Atrocities Act and he had come with the defence of total denial and had not disclosed that he was not in Pune on the relevant day. In my view, the tribunal has correctly held that as a accused in criminal case, it was not necessary for the Principal to lead his evidence. The facts in the present case indicate that the said Principal examined himself and deposed before the Enquiry Officer and contended that he was in Ahemdnagar on 23.3.1999 and returned to Pune in the afternoon on 24.3.1999. This was supported by documentary evidence to indicate that he received the remuneration for delivering a lecture at the Ahmednagar college which document was produced at Exh.29. Log book of the car by which the Principal Kankaria travelled from Ahemdnagar to Pune was also placed on record. The record further indicates that the present petitioner did not enter into the witness box before the Enquiry Officer. He 4 also did not examine Mr. Ghogare who was alleged to be the witness to the incident to prove the allegation that the Principal had abused him as well as Mr.Ghogare on caste. In this background, it is very difficult to hold that the findings of the tribunal are perverse. Making of false allegations under the Atrocities Act is a very serious matter as it can result in drastic action against the accused. In the present case, the petitioner made serious allegations against the Principal but he failed to prove the same. In this view of the matter, petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore, rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)