1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4155/2009 (ABDUL WAHID A. PATEL VERSUS INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR & 19 OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner in Person. Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 13 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner prays that this Court may call for the Record & Proceedings in regard to the T.A., D.A. Bills and the other documents to consider whether the petitioner has removed a sum of Rs.31,247/- fraudulently and if not, the petitioner may be reinstated in service. The petitioner states in the prayer clauses that he may be punished if this Court finds that the petitioner is at fault and the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.31,247/-. The petitioner seeks action against the respondents for falsely taking action against the petitioner for the alleged loss caused to the Department in view of the misappropriation of a sum of Rs.31,247/-. On hearing the petitioner in person and Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and on perusal of the petition, it appears that the petition cannot be entertained and the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 It appears that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court against the punishment of compulsory retirement and when the matter came up before this Court in the first round in Writ Petition No.5999/2006, this Court remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for deciding the complaint afresh. The Industrial Court, by the judgment dated 23.04.2009, dismissed the complaint. The petitioner has not challenged the order dismissing the complaint U.L.P. No.419/1995 by filing a writ petition and has, in stead, filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs, which cannot be granted. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE