1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2331 OF 2000 ... Umesh Kumar ...Petitioner v/s Union of India & ors. ...Respondent ... Mr.G.K.Masand i/b Ms. Subhalaxmi Gode-Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Mishra for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 22 nd September, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by his Appointing Authority removing him from service. The order has also been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner was working as constable with Central Industrial Security Force. The charge sheet was served on the Petitioner. Charge against the Petitioner was that he demanded and accepted 2 Rs.300/- from the workers of the contractors who were engaged by Oil Company. The Petitioner denied the charge. Therefore, inquiry was held. In the departmental inquiry, witnesses were examined, who were cross-examined by the Petitioner. The Inquiry officer at the conclusion of the inquiry concluded that the charge is proved. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal. The appeal was preferred against that order. The appeal was rejected by speaking order. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner first submitted that the Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal in compliance with the appeal provisions in the service Rules. The learned Counsel, however, fairly submitted that this ground has not been raised in the petition. In our opinion, 3 where the Appellate Authority has while deciding the appeal complied with the appeal provisions in the Rules cannot be said to be a pure question of law, especially when the Appellate authority has not passed a non- speaking order. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority shows that the Appellate Authority has given reasons after perusing the record for rejecting the Appeal. In our opinion, in the absence of any ground being raised in the petition, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to argue this point. The learned Counsel then submitted that there is no evidence on record to hold that the guilt has been proved. 3. With the help of the learned Counsel we have perused the entire record. We find that the witnesses were examined during the departmental inquiry. One of the witness 4 examined was Inspector R.S.Nagi, who deposed that on receiving the report about demand of bribe by the Petitioner, he accosted the Petitioner, searched his body and while his belt was being removed to take out the folded notes from the inner pocket of pant, the Petitioner jumped in the gutter of sewage water which was nearby and thereafter he removed the notes from the pocket and put those notes in the mud. The witness has also stated that the Petitioner has given a statement in writing accepting his guilt. Perusal of the cross-examination of the witness does not bring out that the deposition of this witness is not reliable. In fact, there is hardly any cross- examination on the aspect of search, jumping into gutter and putting the money into mud. So far as the aspect of admission of guilt by the Petitioner is concerned, there is no 5 cross-examination whatsoever. In our opinion, therefore, it is not the case where we can say that the finding of guilt has been recorded without there being any evidence on record. There is definitely evidence on record. Whether that evidence on record is sufficient or not is not for this court to examine in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution. That evidence has been examined by the Appellate Authority and has found that the charge has been proved. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the hearing sought our leave to amend the petition to urge the ground in the petition about the Appellate authority not deciding the appeal in accordance with the appeal provision. In our opinion, after lapse of such a long time and considering the stage at which the request for amendment is made, it will not be 6 appropriate to adjourn the hearing of the petition to permit the Petitioner to amend the petition. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with order impugned. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) p (R.G.KETKAR, J.)