1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 314/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1657/2009 ( Hemraj Laxmanrao Ukey .vrs. State of Maharashtra and 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 AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 14, 2009. Heard Shri M.R. Rajgure, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri A.Y. Kapgate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. After holding departmental enquiry, charges of serious nature including preparation of false muster roll of attendance at construction site, obtaining signatures and thumb impression thereon and false records of disbursement of wages contrary to the actual work done and also abuse of food grains coupons, were found established against the appellant. The appellant then filed appeal under Rule 13 [e] of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 before the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that appeal was dismissed after hearing him on 29.04.2005. Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1657/2007 vide order dated 14.02.2008 maintained that order. 2 Shri M.R. Rajgure, learned Counsel for appellant has tried to contend that material documents like complaints on the basis of which departmental action was initiated as also the material witnesses like the persons who lodged those complaints or influential members of the Zilla Parishad who manipulated those complaints were not examined, during the enquiry. Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Kapgate, learned Counsel for the respondents submit that there was no such grievance in appeal or before the learned Single Judge. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties after perusal of the records, we find that in appeal as filed before the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur there is no such grievance made. Only grievance was the labour examined were not from Employment Guarantee Scheme. It was further stated that the appellant had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds and that application has been mis-interpreted. In the circumstances, we find that no case is made out warranting interference. Letters Patent Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.