1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 836 /2011 (Gulab Kehsao Saudagar vs. Divisional Commissioner and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 30th March, 2011. Heard Mr R.M.Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.1980 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, whereby the punishment to remove the petitioner from service was upheld. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed. At the outset, the order is of the year 1980 and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the petition in the year 2010 and, therefore, on the face of it, the order suffers from delay and laches. On this sole ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the petitioner has approached earlier by 2 filing a petition, which was disposed of by this Court by giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities. The petitioner approached the authority and made a representation, which was dismissed. Be that as it may, the basic order is of the year 1980 and, therefore, it is very difficult for us to show indulgence at such a belated stage. Even otherwise on merits also , no no case is made out. The charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved, these are as follows :- (1) Misappropriation of Govt. money of Rs.8917.41; (2) Unauthorized and wilful absence from duty w.e.f. 3.8.78 to the date of suspension (3) Not residing at his fixed headquarters and disobedience of order (4) Not maintaining the office register of birth, death and marriage in Gram Panchayat, Kohali from July 77 to July 78. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor that the finding of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are based on the documents which were not supplied to the petitioner. There is no basic challenge to any specific aspect of the enquiry conducted 3 by the respondents. In that view of the matter, even on merits, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare