1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8396/2008 Baban Savliram Pund Petitioner Vs. The Chief Justice, & Ors. Respondents Mr.Rajiv Patil i/b Mr.Sachin Punde for the Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar,G.P.for the respondents CORAM : V.C.Daga,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date : 24th March,2009. O R D E R (Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . Heard. 1] Perused petition. 2] This Petition is directed against the order dated 3/11/2007 passed by the Appellate Authority of the High Court,Bombay in the Administrative Appeal No.A & R SEC/1074/2007. FACTUAL MATRIX 3] The petitioner was working as a Bailiff since 1/8/1996. His last posting was in the Court of Civil Judge,Jr.Division and Judicial Magistrate,First Class at Dindori, Dist.Nasik.The charge against petitioner was that he was entrusted to execute an attachment warrant of Rs.26,000/- in Regular Darkhast No. 41/99 on 31/7/2000.He could not execute it because he did not find the Judgment Debtor one Mr.Dattu Borse. Again,on 21/11/2000, he went 2 to execute the warrant and at that time Dattu Borse paid him an amount of Rs.450/- towards the partial satisfaction of the Darkhast amount by borrowing money from his neighbour.That the Petitioner did not deposit the said money with the Court. That he submitted false report in the name of one Prakash Surse that the Judgment Debtor was not present. 4] On 20/12/2000 another Bailiff went to execute the attachment warrant. However, at that time the Judgment Debtor disclosed that he had paid an amount of Rs.450/- to the previous Bailiff i.e.the petitioner on the previous date as such he demanded from him the receipt of the earlier payment of Rs.450/-made by him . However, the another Bailiff did not issue any receipt of Rs.450/- in favour of Dattu Borse. So Dattu Borse refused to make any further payment towards recovery warrant. 5] The above fact was reported to the Civil Judge,J.D..He issued notice dated 24/5/2000 to the Petitioner on the report of the other bailiff dated 24/5/2000 calling upon him to give his say to the complaint made by Dattu Borse. The Civil Judge,J.D.and J.M.F.C. Nandgaon made discreet enquiry. He recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and submitted the enquiry report on 16/10/2001 to the District Judge,Nasik. 6] The District & Sessions Judge and the Disciplinary Authority, thereafter issued chargesheet and statement of imputation to the petitioner charging him of misappropriation of the part of the decreetal amount, not making proper entries in the record,and making 3 false and forged report amounting to gross negligence and misappropriation of the amount of Rs.450/-. Thereafter regular enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer i.e. II Additional District and Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik. She after completion of the enquiry submitted report on 21/8/2002 to the District & Sessions Judge, Nasik. Thereafter, the Principal District & Sessions Judge and the Disciplinary Authority, Nasik, by his order dated dated 11/6/2007 imposed major penalty of dismissal on the petitioner in the said Departmental Enquiry. 7] The Petitioner, thereafter challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority i.e. on the Administrative Side of the High Court, Bombay under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules,1979 by way of Administrative Appeal and the Appellate Authority by order dated 3/11/2007 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 8] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,the petitioner has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. SUBMISSIONS 9] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and wrongly dismissed from the service. He submitted that the Disciplinary Authority and the 4 Appellate Authority have failed to appreciate the evidence tendered before them at the time of enquiry in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority should have taken into account a fact that how the bailiff would not have accepted a partial satisfaction of megre amount of Rs.450/- against the total amount of Rs.26,000/-. It was further argued that the person who has supposed to be allegedly forged the signature i.e. one Prakash Surse was not examined and so the petitioner did not get any opportunity to cross examine him on the point of forgery. He has further submitted that the petitioner has denied all the charges effectively in the cross examination and this fact ought to have been appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. 10] Learned Government Pleader while opposing the petition submitted that the evidence of the witnesses tendered at the time of Departmental Enquiry is found to be consistent and relevant .He has drawn our attention to the statement of one witness i.e.the Judgment Debtor, Dattu Borse, who deposed that the said Bailiff had returned Rs.450/- to him in the Court itself before he was to depose in the said enquiry. This fact was corroborated by the evidence of other witness Dnyandev Borse. He has further submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner is legal and the order of the Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority need not to be set aside. CONSIDERATION 11] The report of the enquiry is mainly based on the facts and the circumstances deposed by the witnesses. In the writ jurisdiction 5 we are not inclined to re-evaluate the evidence, however, to test the correctness and the legality of the order of the enuquiry officer we had to go through the evidence of the witnesses. It shows that the complainant has maintained his stand of payment of Rs.450/-to the petitioner on 21/11/2000 towards the satisfaction of the part the decree and the other witnesses have supported him. No material is brought on record in the cross examination to dislodge the charge except mere suggestions. 12] At the time of the evidence of the complainant the petitioner has returned the amount of the complainant.The act of returning amount of Rs.450/- to the complainant in the Court by the petitioner is significantly incriminating. The complainant has made immediate disclosure to the authority. This incident itself shows that the petitioner had accepted the said amount of Rs.450/- and he had neither deposited the said amount nor made any entry to that effect in the Court record. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner on the Administrative side and the Appellate Authority after considering all the facts and circumstances has rightly dismissed the appeal. No procedural lacuna or any illegality is found in the departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice were followed by the enquiry officer. Hence there is no ground to disturb the concurrent findings in the enquiry report dated 21/8/2002 and the order dated 3/11/2007 in the Administrative Appeal in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands dismissed in limini with no 6 order as to cost. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.) -