1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 73. WP/2587/2009 (MAHOHAR TUKARAM DAWANE V/S 1. THE NADED WAGHALA MUNICIPAL COROPERATION ) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. G.J.Karne, Adv.for the petitioner. Mr. M.V.Deshpande, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM:K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28/9/2010 ... 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner, an employee in Municipal Corporation, Nanded, misbehaved with Sanitary Inspector Shri Govind Thethe, by allegedly abusing him in filthy language, allegedly under influence and also tried to control said Shri Govind Thethe, with Collar. This has been witnessed by several persons. In a criminal prosecution, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. In a Departmental Inquiry, conducted by the duly constituted authority, statements of six persons were recorded. The statements illustrate, in tune, they have indicated about the mis-behaviour extended by the petitioner on 4.9.1997 to the Sanitary Inspector Shri Govind Thethe. The reason assigned by the petitioner is that, he is deaf and, is required to be loud in his speech. However, that may not be a correct assertion as it is not Mr.Thete alone but others who 2 witnessed the event, tried to intervene but, in vain. The acquittal in criminal prosecution will not be a licence to continue in service without any Departmental Inquiry. Both; the inquiry and trial, have different facets of appreciation of evidence and they should not and need not be equated. 3. The learned Authority, on analysis of evidence found that the charge of being under influence was not established, however, charge of misbehaving was established and in terms of Rule 28 Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, there being infraction, the Inquiry Officer directed to stop one increment permanently and also not to release salary of suspension period or, if it is so released, it should be recovered. Considering the fact situation, the order of the learned Judge in Application No.54/1999, dt.8.3.2007, need not be questioned. However, the subsistence allowance for the suspension period could not have been withheld as was directed. The stoppage of one increment does not require any interference as charges are proved against the petitioner and discipline is naturally necessary to be maintained in the organization for smooth administration. 4. Writ Petition partly allowed. Subsistence allowance be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. The order stopping one increment is not altered. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE (agp:2587-09wp