1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.592 OF 1998 Shaikh Ahmad Shaikh Jumma Pinjari, age: 56 years, Occ: Service, R/o Erandol, Tal. Erandol, District Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3 The Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. Respondents Mr.J.R.Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, A.G.P. advocate for Respondent1 & 3. Miss Rajashree Gudgilla, advocate holding for Mr.Vijay Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 8 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala, J.): 1 The petitioner assails the order dated 27.07.1983, passed in the departmental enquiry by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and the order dated 14.08.1984, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in appeal, so also prays for a direction that services of the petitioner be counted as continuous service from 22.08.1963 i.e. the service rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad Nashik. 2 2 Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly concedes that as far as prayer (B) is concerned, the petitioner may not be entitled to the same in view of the fact that earlier service was with Panchayat Samiti, Niphad, District Nashik and petitioner has rendered resignation there. As far as punishment imposed in departmental proceedings is concerned, it is found that the appellate authority has come to a categorical conclusion that though the petitioner has withdrawn salary of 14 days from Panchayat Samiti, Niphad as well as from Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, same was unintentional and he had no dishonest intention to cheat the Government. He also came to the conclusion that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Niphad had knowledge of this fact on 20.05.1965 and said Block Development Officer should have consulted with Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Panchayat Samiti regarding resignation of petitioner and payment of salary for the period 05.05.1965 to 19.05.1965 and decision thereof should have been taken, but the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, failed to perform his duty. The only reason given by the appellate authority for confirming punishment of the petitioner to the extent of reduction in rank, is that he had deposited the amount late. 3 We find that as the appellate authority has recorded a categorical conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat the Government, in such circumstances, imposition of punishment of reduction in rank for two years is disproportionate and as such, does not stand to any reason. 4 In the light of above, we set aside the impugned order and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) and dismiss the petition 3 as far as prayer clause (B) is concerned. 5 Rule is made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp59298 *******