1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4358 of 2008 [D.R. Gajbhiye Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.J. Khandalkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 11th November,2008. 1. Heard Mr. S.J. Khandalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is in the employment of the Respondent-Corporation as a Meter Inspector. 3. The petitioner was issued a charge- sheet in regard to his negligence of duties in supervising the work of his subordinates, who had indulged in giving illegal water connections and also in recovery of Rs.76,200-00 from Hotel Arjun. 4. Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and by order dated 18th March, 2002, he has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment permanently. 2 5. Against the said order of punishment, petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Govt., and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal filed under Section 50 (1) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. Hence this petition. 6. We have gone through the report of Enquiry Officer as well as enquiry proceedings submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 9th November, 2001. The Enquiry Officer held Shri Takalkhede guilty, and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he was held to be negligent in supervising the work of Shri Takalkhede in his capacity as a Water Meter Inspector, despite the fact that there is a separate machinery for vigilance of illegal water connections. 7. The said report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority who passed a reasoned order on 18th March, 2002 and awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment permanently. 8. The Appellate Authority has also considered all the material afresh and confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. We are satisfied that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not committed any errors and the concurrent 3 view taken by both the authorities in awarding the punishment of stoppage of one increment permanently calls for no interference in this petition. 10. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. Judge Judge |Hedau|