1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 168 of 2006 Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha v. State and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.S. Sanyal, Adv for petitioner Mr Y.B. Mandpe, APP for respdts no.1 & 11. Mr M.V. Samarth, Adv for respdt no.2. Mr Manoj Pilley, Adv for resdt no.3. Mr S.B. Dawle, Adv for respdts 5 & 7 Mr R. Darda, Adv for respondent no.8 Mr R.S. Sunderam, Adv for respdt no. 9 Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 3rd December 2008 1. Heard Mr S.S. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This Court in the order dated 16th October 2007 passed in the present writ petition has observed that except the issue of misappropriation of funds, the other issues raised in the petition stand redressed. This Court in the order dated 14th October 2008 directed the Municipal Commissioner to file an affidavit giving 2 details as to what action the Corporation has initiated against the officers who are prima facie found responsible on the basis of report of the Additional Municipal Commissioner. In the affidavit dated 18.3.2008 filed by the Municipal Commissioner, it was mentioned that disciplinary action against the officers viz. (i) Shri P.L. Varhade, Assistant Engineer, Zone No. 9; (ii) Shri S.S. Hastak, Executive Engineer, Water Works; (iii) Dr M.R. Ganvir, Health Officer and (iv) Shri N.B. Shrikhande, Garden Superintendent is already initiated by the Corporation and the charge-sheets have also been issued to them. 2. In the said order dated 14th October 2008, this Court once again directed Mr M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to file affidavit of Additional Commissioner which must contain stage of departmental enquiry and the time within which the said enquiry would be completed. Pursuant to the said order, the Additional Commissioner has filed an affidavit dated 20.10.2008 wherein it is mentioned that the departmental enquiry initiated against the above-referred four officers shall be completed within six months from 21.10.2008. Mr Samarth has submitted that if the above-referred officers are found guilty of misconduct in the departmental enquiry, appropriate civil as well as criminal action in accordance with law shall be taken against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if 3 the disciplinary authority ignores the vital evidence produced in the enquiry, in that event, petitioner be permitted to agitate the grievance before the appropriate forum. 4. In the backdrop of the above-referred fact, we are of the view that the Corporation has already initiated departmental enquiry by issuing charge-sheets to the officers concerned and has also assured this Court that the same would be completed within a period of six months and, therefore, it is premature for us to judge whether the officers are guilty of misconduct or not. Principles of natural justice also require opportunity to be given to the delinquent to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. However, the purpose for which the petition is filed, in our view, is achieved since the action is already initiated by the Corporation and, therefore, nothing remains in the present writ petition to be decided by this Court. In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition. So far as the outcome of the enquiry is concerned and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same and if there is any remedy available in law, it is open for the petitioner to pursue the same. Judge. Judge. hsj