1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7904 OF 2008 Mr. Arun Dattaram Parte. ... Appellant. V/s. The Chairman; The Hindi Vidya Prachar Samiti & Ors. ... Respondents. Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for the Appellant. Mr. M.V. Joglekar for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent 5. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2010. P.C. :- This is an Appeal against the Order dated 5th December 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7904 of 2008. 2. The Appellant - Library Attendant was working under Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The allegation against him was that he misbehaved with the Librarian and did not carry out the directions given to him. In the circumstances, after holding an inquiry, by an order dated 22nd August 2008, he was dismissed from service. The Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 59 of 2 the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. The said Appeal has been dismissed on 12th September 2008 and being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the aforesaid Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Petition has also been rejected. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Appellant as well as for the Respondents. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in fact, the Appellant had not misbehaved and evidence which was adduced was not sufficient for imposition of a harsh punishment of dismissal. Moreover, it has been submitted that some amount payable to the Appellant towards provident fund and interest thereon has not been paid yet. 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, in our opinion, the evidence was duly considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had confirmed the order of dismissal. The order of the Tribunal has also been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. 3 6. We perused the concurrent findings of the learned Single Judge and the Tribunal. We do not see any reason to take a view, different than the one arrived at. 7. So far as the amount of Provident Fund is concerned, it would be open for the Appellant to give details of the unpaid amount of Provident Fund and interest thereon to Respondent No. 2 and to other concerned authority. Upon getting the representation, Respondent No.2 shall look into it and shall pay the amount, if payable and if not, shall give the details as to how the amount was paid to the Appellant. 8. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.