1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 45 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2016 OF 2006 Shri Mukesh Gangaaram Bhasney. .. ... Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. .. ... Respondents. Mr. R. K. Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms.Shradha Chavan for the Respondents. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 15TH MARCH, 2010 P. C.: In our opinion, this is totally a frivolous notice of motion and is an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. After conducting an inquiry punishment was imposed on the petitioner by way of removal from service. Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, that came to be dismissed. Against which, a present writ petition has been filed and that petition has been admitted on 11th September, 2006. 3. The petitioner has now taken out a notice of motion, wherein he has prayed to direct respondent No.1, Central Railway to participate in an inquiry in the matter and to submit their finding report before this court. 2 There is no inquiry pending in respect of the subject matter of the present petition and consequently the question of granting such relief does not arise. 4. Learned Counsel contends that the charge memo issued to the petitioner was in respect of one misconduct and he has been punished for another and as such inquiry should be conducted. This is an issue which cannot be gone into the notice of motion. This issue can be considered at the final hearing of the writ petition as to whether due procedure of law was followed while imposing the punishment, considered the charge framed, the charges proved. 5. There is no merit in this notice of motion. The notice of motion is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,500/-. Sd/- (F.I. REBELLO,J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)