1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1986 OF 2011 ( Namdeo Laxmanrao Gawande Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. ) WRIT PETITION NO. 1987 OF 2011 Chandrakant Manohar Belekar Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2011 Purushottam Tulshiram Tikas Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 1989 OF 2011 Kashirao Namdeorao Dhoke Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2011 Dilip Gangadhar Burde Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2011 Narayan Tikaramji Nandanwar Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 1992 OF 2011 Gajanan Marotrao Lodhe Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri P. V. Marpakwar Adv for petitioner. Shri Sathianathan Adv for respondents 1 to 4. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Marpakwar learned counsel for the petitioner 2 and Shri Sathianathan learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the orders of punishment. Shri Marpakwar has attempted to demonstrate that defence raised in reply by petitioner to show cause has not been considered. He further points out that as theft/pilferage and any malafides on part of petitioner are not established as per policy decision of respondents dated 14.02.2008, punishment could not have been effected. He contends that recovery of such huge amount and for such loss (alleged) cannot be viewed as minor penalty. Respondents rely upon the provisions of Section 5 dealing with Discipline and Appeal Regulations, and particularly Clause 54 to allege that recovery for loss sustained is not a major penalty. Amongst other things it is also contended that Departmental Appeal filed by the present petitioner is still pending. We have perused prayer clauses in the petition. In this situation we direct appellate authority – respondent no.3 or competent authority in this respect to decide pending appeal within a period of two months from today after hearing petitioner in the matter. Shri Marpakwar insists for grant of interim order as according to him deduction every month from the petitioner’s salary is being effected. This Court has issued notice in the matter on 10.06.2011 and no interim relief is operating since last about three months. In this 3 situation we are not inclined to grant interim relief. Keeping all contentions raised by Shri Marpakwar open for consideration in future if occasion arises, and with a direction to decide the appeal finally within two months we dispose of the petition. Steno copy of the order be supplied to the counsel for parties. JUDGE JUDGE svk