1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4676/2009 ( Madhukar Sadashiv Bulbule -: VERSUS :- President, Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Paliwal for petitioner, Adv. Shri Patil for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Adv. Shri Chutke for respondent nos.3 and 4. Adv. Shri Patil has pointed out that the judgment of College Tribunal delivered on 11/7/1997 is being questioned in the present writ petition after delay of about 12 years and delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Adv Shri Paliwal states that the petitioner was terminated on account of alleged misappropriation in 1997 and that order was questioned before the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and petitioner could not file further challenge thereto because of his mental condition and poor financial position. He invites attention to the fact that in year 2000 in Regular Criminal Case No.96/1996 the petitioner was convicted and that conviction was set aside by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.60/2001 on 21st of March 2006. According to 2 him, after this acquittal by competent Court, the cause of action has accrued in favour of petitioner. With his assistance I have perused the papers. The judgment of College Tribunal dated 11/7/1997 shows that the petitioner was absent from his duties without prior permission from 28/7/2009 and hence was declared deserter after following due procedure of law. The College Tribunal has found on merits challenge to such desertion unsustainable. In any case, the conviction of petitioner is three years thereafter and therefore has no bearing on the judgment of College Tribunal. In this situation, it is apparent that his subsequent acquittal also is not relevant. I therefore, find that explanation sought to be pressed into service for the delay of about 12 years is not just and sufficient. Writ petition is therefore dismissed as suffering from latches and negligence. JUDGE Tambaskar.