1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2657 of 2010 The State of Mah. through its Secretary, Rural Devlp. And Water Conservation Dept.Mumbai and anr. ..vs.. Madhukar Natthuji Dhoke =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Smt.B.Dangre, AGP for the petitioners. Mr.R.V.Shiralkar Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : V. C. DAGA AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 24th November, 2010. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused petition. This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in O.A.No.350 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the order of revision impugned therein dated 2/11/2001 was quashed and set aside with further consequential directions directing the benefits to be extended to the respondent in terms of the said order. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the petitioner submits that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the Government Resolution dated 21st April, 1989 is erroneous. 2 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur, had no authority to revert the respondent by way of punishment. The ultimate order of the Tribunal impugned herein can well be supported, may be for the different reason recorded herein below. Learned A.G.P. for the petitioner - either in the petition or during the course of hearing could not demonstrate power vested with the Divisional Commissioner to pass order dated 26/9/1994. The subsequent notification dated 23rd November, 1998 giving powers to the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur to inflict minor punishment cannot be given retrospective effect so as to validate the erroneous and illegal order which was impugned before the Tribunal. The reliance placed on the notification dated 23rd November, 1998 is thus misplaced. The punitive action taken in the year 1994 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. No perversity in the impugned order of the Tribunal could be demonstrated by AGP either in the petition or oral submissions made. The view taken by the Tribunal can, ultimately, be well supported, may be for different reasons as recorded herein. In the result, no case is made out to entertain this petition. Petition is therefore rejected in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 3