1 WP 7082..........2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7082 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7083 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. H.K.Munde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :19/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. Mr. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file affidavit in reply. However, taking into account the nature of the matter, the affidavit in reply is not necessary. 2. Mr. Munde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the enquiry which was said to have been conducted was dehors the principles of natural justice, then there was no question of remand. The punishment imposed has to be set aside. The order does not state that 2 WP 7082..........2011 the punishment has been set aside. According to the learned counsel, the enquiry actually was against the Education Officer and Dy. Education Officer. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions are Jr. Clerk and Sr. Clerk. They have no role to play in the alleged complaints. Still, without issuing any show cause notice, a farce was made of enquiry against the petitioners and minor punishment of with-holding of three ( 3 ) increments was imposed against the petitioners, which is illegal and can not be sustained. Even the appellate authority had come to the said conclusion, still has remanded the matter without setting aside the punishment. According to the learned counsel, there was no question of any remand. That will amount to filling in the lacunae. 3. Mr. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order impugned in the present petition. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order passed. 5. The appellant authority had come to the conclusion that the enquiry said to have been conducted was in conflict with the principles of natural justice and had remitted the matter. When the appellate authority has found that the enquiry was not in consonance with Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad ( Discipline and Appeal) 3 WP 7082..........2011 Rules, 1964 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ], then in such circumstances the punishment imposed pursuant to the said enquiry also is set aside. 6. Whether to enquire in to a particular matter or not is the prerogative of the respondent. The only caution is that the respondent has to follow the procedure and the rules laid down under the relevant statute and the rules while conducting the enquiry coupled with the principles of natural justice. But, only because the enquiry which is conducted appears to be faulty to the appellate authority, that would not be sufficient to be an impediment for the respondent to initiate a fresh enquiry. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a clarification that when the appellate authority had held that the enquiry was improper, the punishment imposed on the petitioners i.e. with holding three ( 3 ) increment is also set aside. The respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry if it so desires by following the rules laid down under the said Rules and the relevant statute. 8. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7082..........2011 4 WP 7082..........2011