1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2009 Dipak Marutirao Pathak ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 13th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 – the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, imposing minor punishment of stoppage of annual increment on permanent basis. However, the petitioner has been exonerated in respect of recovery of Rs. 30,188/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad against the said order. By an order dated 16.10.2008, the Additional Divisional Commissioner confirmed the order of punishment of stoppage of increment. Hence, the present writ petition is preferred, challenging both these orders. 2 2. The petitioner was given show cause notice dated 6.4.2004 and 21.4.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.5.2004. After taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner, the order, imposing minor penalty of stoppage of increment, has been passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no inquiry was conducted before imposing punishment of stoppage of increment. Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 prescribed the procedure for imposing minor penalties. It merely requires show cause notice to be issued in respect of the allegations on which the action is proposed to be taken and to give an opportunity to make representation in respect of the same. The said procedure has been complied with. No fault can be found. 4. The appellate authority has also taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and has recorded the findings of facts, confirming the order of punishment of stoppage of increment. The findings of facts are based upon the evidence available on record and hence, the same cannot be reopened in the instant writ petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by the 3 impugned orders, it has been directed that an amount of Rs. 30,188/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. He submits that there is no finding recorded that the petitioner has misappropriated the said amount. The learned A.G.P. has pointed out that the Additional Commissioner, in the order impugned dated 16.10.2008, has clearly recorded a finding that an amount of Rs. 30,188/- cannot be recovered from the petitioner and in fact, the direction to recover the said amount, given in the said order is against the other concerned officers and not against the petitioner. In view of this, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been held liable for payment of Rs. 30,188/-. Hence, there is no question of recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. The grievance made in that respect does not bear any substance. 6. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2004.09