1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6976 OF 2007 Sau. Mangala Revji Sonwane - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.S.T.Shelke,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.K.S.Patil,AGP for Respondents. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 13th September, 2010. ORAL ORDER (PER:- S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 3) The petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 26th April, 2007 passed by learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (for short, MAT) in Original Application No.598/2005. 2 4) The petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in Food & Drugs Administration at Ahmednagar. At the relevant time, additional charge of Head Clerk from January 12, 2001 to April 31, 2001 was also shouldered upon the petitioner. The petitioner also worked as an Accountant during the period of holding such additional charge. 5) Indisputably, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23rd November, 2001 for the alleged misconduct, pursuant to which, Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 8 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979. We have seen the charges levelled against the petitioner. 6) After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 31st November, 2002 to the Disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer had, in fact, exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against the petitioner. 7) The Disciplinary Authority served a show cause notice dated 7th March, 2002 to the petitioner, taking a different view than that of the Inquiry Officer. In other words, the 3 Disciplinary Authority did not concur with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 7th November, 2003, thereby imposing minor punishment of withholding of two yearly increments of pay permanently. This order of imposing punishment was subjected and or challenged before the MAT, Aurangabad in Original Application No.598/2005, which came to be dismissed by learned Member of MAT. 8) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through the material placed on record. We have perused Exhibit-C (page 40), which is an order passed by the Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration. We have also minutely considered the contents of para no.2 of the said order in view of the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also taken into consideration the findings recorded by learned Member of MAT in para no.15. 9) In case of non extending an opportunity of being heard or in case of derogation of principles of natural justice, this Court may interfere with such order. If the punishment so imposed is found to be shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct, this Court may step in to quash and set aside such order. 4 10) We have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties. In our view, no case for judicial review is made out. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad – (2010) 5 SCC 775. 11) In this view of the matter, no case for interference, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is established. The writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/