1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.5169/2008 Rajan Mohan Bohre vs. The Disciplinary Authority and Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature at Bomay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.S.Sanyal with Mr. S.M.Ukey, Advocates for the petitioner. CORAM : B.H.Marlapalle & A.H.Joshi, JJ DATE : 18.12.2008 Heard Mr. S.S.Sanyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was employed under the Registry of this Court as a sweeper and there were some daily wagers whose job was required to be supervised by him. A joint complaint came to be filed against him by nine daily wage sweepers stating that the petitioner was demanding and in fact accepting money from time to time from them. Consequently, he was issued a charge sheet for demanding and accepting money as well as for using abusive language if the money was not paid. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and he was also issued a second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority viz. The Registrar (Administration) of this Bench passed a reasoned order on 24.7.2007 and awarded the punishment of removal from service which shall not 2` be a disqualification for future employment under the Government as per clause (viii) of Rule 4(1) of the Bombay High Court (Discipline and Appeal) Rules with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged the said order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority by filing appeal under Rule 14 of the Bombay High Court (Discipline and Appeals) Rules and the learned Administrative Judge (for deciding the appeals) heard the petitioner. The appeal came to be dismissed on 21.8.2008 by a reasoned order. The appellate authority went through the entire and more particularly the record of the Departmental Enquiry and noted that out of 9 complainants, the statement made by Mr. Dharampal Ramteke clearly went to state that the petitioner had demanded money from him and he used to abuse him. The second witness Vishnu Ambekar also admitted that the petitioner used to abuse him in filthy language as stated by Dharampal Ramteke. The third witness Santosh Baghele has also reiterated the allegations stated in the joint complaint and to the fact that the petitioner had demanded amount from all the nine daily wage sweepers. This witness went on to state that one Manish Dagore, the sweeper, used to collect the said amount from the nine daily wagers on behalf of the petitioner. Irrespective of the amount of money that was demanded and paid, the 3` appellate authority recorded an opinion that the petitioner was unfit to be retained in service under the Judiciary and the appellate authority did not find any reason for interference in the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. We do not see any reason to take any different view than the view taken by the appellate authority and we are satisfied that there is no case made out to reconsider the view taken by both the authorities. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE patle