1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9527 OF 2009 ... Union of India ...Petitioner v/s. Shri Shivappa, M.Jabgond and another ...Respondents ... Mr.A.D.Shetty with Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A.Atre for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 11th March,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 2. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By that order the punishment of removal imposed on the Respondent No.1 has been set aside and the Petitioner has been directed to reconsider the issued as to what would be the appropriate punishment to be imposed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assails the order on many grounds. One of the ground on which the order is assailed is that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that Rule 108 of the Manual, which is quoted in the order, applies by its own force to the Respondent. The learned Counsel points out that Rule does not apply to the Respondent who is not the regular 3 employee of the Department. He is a Gramin Dak Sevak. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also accepted this position and requested that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration. 5. It is, thus, clear that the approach of the Tribunal in so far as applicability of Rule 108 of the Manual is concerned is admittedly wrong. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i)The Order dated 3rd August, 2009 passed in Original Application No.66 of 2005 is set aside. (ii)That Original Application is remitted 4 back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. (iii)The Tribunal is requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. (iv)Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) ( A.R.JOSHI,J)