1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1875 OF 2008 (Union of India .v. Shailesh Bhagwandas Rangari Safaiwala) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 Heard Shri Mohan Sudame, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.K. Pathan, the learned Counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31.01.2008 whereby the Original application filed by the respondent came to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, the department in fact has followed the regular procedure applicable to the Departmental Enquiry and, therefore, the decision of the authority was in confirmity with the procedure applicable. It is further contended that the respondent did not work for the period mentioned and, therefore, was not entitled for back wages for the said period. It is also contended that the observations made by the Tribunal against the department are also not correct 2 since the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per the procedure, by following principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, contended that the order impugned is bad in law. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order. The observations made by the Tribunal in para 5 clearly show that the revisional authority itself in its order dated 31.05.2006 has observed that there were many discrepancies in the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the respondent. The other observations also show that the original disciplinary file was also not available with the petitioner and was to be constructed and the enquiry report along with the finding also could not be located. It is also observed in the same paragraph that on the earlier occasion, the respondent had filed Original Application No.2070/2000 which was disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner that the respondent would be taken back on duty with effect from 21.12.2000. Taking into consideration these observations made in para 5 as well as the other conclusions recorded in para 7 of the impugned order, we are of the view that the petitioner failed to make out a case for showing any 3 indulgence. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.