1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3753 OF 1993. D.M.Lathkar, Age major, Occ.Service, as Senior Assistant, Integrated Child Development Project, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, Under the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Ajay Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.S.Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.S.G.Shinde, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 02.08.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.3.1992, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, thereby permanently stopping one annual increment, including the future benefits and the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, thereby partly allowing the appeal and modified the order for stopping of one additional increment for five (5) years. 2. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the communication of the Hon'ble Lok Ayukt, reached in the hands of the petitioner only in the month of September 1999. Thereafter, he had immediately processed the same and forwarded to the competent Officer. He submits that however, the delay in giving reply to the Hon'ble Lok Ayukt occasioned since the reply was not sent by the concerned Officer. He submits that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner has been punished. 3. Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for the 3 Respondent NO.1 submits that only on account of the delay attributable to the petitioner reply could not sent to the Hon'ble Lok Ayukt and as such no interference is warranted. 4. From the record it is revealed that petitioner after receipt of the communication had immediately prepared the noting and sent it to the concerned office. We, therefore, find that the penalty imposed against the petitioner was not sustainable in law. 5. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Necessary steps for releasing salary/pension shall be completed within a period of six (6) months from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp375393 4