Review 1/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.1/2011 IN L.P.A.NO.104/2007 Municipal Counsel,Akkalkot Petitioner Vs. Siddharudh Tukaram Pujari & Ors. Respondents Mr.Ashok Tajane for petitioner Ms.A.N.Helekar for res. Coram-P.B.Majmudar, And Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date- 5th August,2011. P.C. . Learned counsel for the review petitioner/ appellant submits that the order may be reviewed on the ground that it is not a case of the respondent that he has committed misconduct. In our view there is no ground made out for reviewing the order even as on today the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that no departmental enquiry was held and therefore, no question on the part of the employee to admit the guilt before the enquiry officer arises. He Review 1/11 2 submits that in the cross examination before the Court the respondent had admitted said aspect and his statement should be read accordingly. In our original judgment we have recorded the statement of the advocate that no departmental enquiry was held and therefore there was no question of the petitioner to admit any guilt in the enquiry proceedings. The order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed in L.P.A. in view of the fact that no enquiry was held and the employee did not plead guilty before the enquiry officer. The statement made by the advocate therefore is not to be construed otherwise.The statement of the advocate was recorded in view of his submission that no enquiry was held and therefore the employee has not pleaded guilty in the departmental enquiry. 2 In view of the same the original order is not required to be reviewed. 3 Today also the advocate for the petitioner Review 1/11 3 admitted that as there was no enquiry. Learned advocate only argued on the basis of some statement made by the respondent in the cross examination before the Labour Court. Since the departmental enquiry was not held and it is the well settled position that nobody can be punished without holding enquiry on the ground of misconduct,ultimately the order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed. 4 We do not find any substance in the review petition. The same is dismissed. 5 It is unfortunate that the petitioner has spent public money by filing such review petition. Even though it is admitted fact that the respondent was dismissed on the ground of misconduct without any enquiry, the Corporation has filed this review proceedings. 6 In view of the aforesaid clarification and Review 1/11 4 with a view that there is no misunderstanding we made clarification in this order. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that he is not pressing any other point in the review petition. Review petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)