1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6705 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra through Presenting Officer, M.A.T. Aurangabad and others .. Petitioners Versus Shri Vithal Ramrao Sutare .. Respondents Shri V.B.Ghatge, Assistant Govt.Pleader for petitioners CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 14th October 2009 PER COURT 1. This petition at the behest of the State questions the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No.208 of 2007, dated 5.3.2009, quashing the order of dismissal dated 23.11.2005 and granting reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service to the respondent. 2. The order of the Tribunal at paragraph 11 clearly discloses that the original record was made available for perusal and upon perusal of the original record the tribunal came to the conclusion that no Presenting 2 Officer had been appointed in the conduct of the departmental enquiry on behalf of the respondents. On further perusal of the record the tribunal recorded a finding that the entire evidence had been recorded by the Education Officer himself directing elucidating answers from the witnesses himself without any one presenting on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was a weird way of conducting the enquiry and also recorded a finding that the Enquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer as the same would clearly be smacking of mala fide and bias. The Tribunal, therefore, at paragraph 12 of the judgment came to the conclusion that the entire enquiry was vitiated and, therefore, quashed and set aside the report of the Education Officer and consequently, allowed the original application and granted reinstatement with backwages to the respondent. 3. Shri Ghatge, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners has invited our attention to a Circular dated 1.4.2003. On the basis of the said Circular, it is sought to be urged before us that appointment of a Presenting Officer was not necessary. The aforesaid Circular nowhere states that the Enquiry Officer can work as the Presenting Officer. Obviously, the Enquiry Officer could not have acted as the Presenting Officer himself. The aforesaid circular, therefore, according to us does not come to the aid of the petitioners. 3 4. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Assistant Govt.Pleader, we do not find any merit in the petition and, therefore, the petition is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/6705.09wp)