1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.73 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4719 OF 2008 (Bhimrao Keshaorao Ingole vs. Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for appellant. Shri M.A. Vaishnav, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. Parihar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3. ------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 5, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, being Writ Petition No.4719/2008, filed by the appellant. The writ petition was directed against the judgment and order dated 28/3/2008 passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal challenging the 2 order of his termination issued by the respondent - Institute. It appears that service of the appellant was terminated after holding a departmental enquiry. Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset submitted that the departmental enquiry, conducted against the appellant, was ex parte. He further submitted that the appellant, in the course of enquiry, had filed an application on 8/2/2002 demanding certain documents, which, according to Shri Kothale, were relevant for deciding the enquiry. He submitted that even those documents were not supplied to the appellant. Thus, he submitted, the report of the departmental enquiry, on the basis of which the appellant's service was terminated, was illegal and it ought not to have been relied upon for terminating his service. In short, he submitted that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the departmental enquiry and, therefore, order of termination issued on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee cannot be sustained. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25/11/2008 so also the 3 judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. It appears that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity before the Enquiry Committee, however, he chose not to adduce any evidence in defence before the Enquiry Committee. As a matter of fact, he did not raise any defence before the Management at any point of time. The documents, which the appellant asked for vide his application dated 8/2/2002, were also found to be irrelevant since he failed to establish any relevance of those documents for deciding the question involved in the proceedings. The learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects in a proper perspective and has rightly held that no prejudice was caused to the appellant by non-supply or non-production of those documents. We do not find any error worth taking notice of and interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj 4