1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2010. State of Maharashtra,thr.its Secretary, Home Department,Mantralaya,Mumbai and Others. .Vrs. Liladhar s/o Mukundrao Sormare,Saoner,Nagpur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for respondent.) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 23.06.2011 The order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT), dated 23rd March,2007 in Original Application No. 567 of 2000 is very clear. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT) found punishment awarded by disciplinary authority disproportionate to the misconduct committed by Petitioner and therefore observed that decision needed reconsideration so far as quantum of punishment awarded. Matter was remanded back to 2 petitioners. Petitioners did not take any objection to said order and proceeded to reconsider. Vide order dated 27th June, 2007 again very same punishment has been maintained. The respondent then approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT) again, in Original Application No. 697 of 2009 and vide judgment dated 10th November, 2010 the action has been found to be unsustainable. Before us, Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Addl. Government Pleader states that the earlier order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,Nagpur (MAT), dated 23rd March 2007 and present order dated 10th November, 2010 are both questioned now. It is urged that as per circular which governs the quantum of punishment no lesser punishment is possible and hence very same punishment has been maintained. Mr. Khanzode, learned Counsel appearing for respondent/employee contends that, the petitioners have taken action as per order dated 23rd March 2007 and still again assailed the same. He 3 further contends that when that punishment was found to be disproportionate it was open to petitioners to approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT) with appropriate request for reconsideration. But then without taking any such step by second order the punishment already quashed is imposed again and it is nothing but contempt of Court. The authority imposing the punishment again on 27.06.2007 has looked into the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT) and thereafter the punishment already set-aside has been imposed. The appeal filed against it came to be rejected by the order dated 10th March 2008. In appeal the grievance that punishment is against the directions by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT), has been looked into and very same punishment has been maintained. It is obvious that, if Petitioners were aggrieved by order dated 23rd March,2007 they could have challenged that order before appropriate forum. In absence of any challenge, the findings of 4 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT) that punishment awarded by disciplinary authority was disproportionate has attained the finality. Matter was remanded back only for reconsideration of quantum i.e. not for imposing very same punishment. The imposition of very same punishment by Petitioner is therefore rightly found to be vitiated by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (MAT). The judgment dated 10th November, 2010 in Original Application No 697 of 2009 is therefore maintained. Accordingly Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//