1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3619 OF 2006 Shri.Mohammed Israil Khan. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.4128 OF 2006 Shri.Jagannath Pandurang More. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.4131 OF 2006 Shri.Virendra Vinayak Sawant. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- 2 Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Petitioners. Mrs.N.V.Masurkar, for Respondent no.3. Mr.Rajiv Chavan with Rutuja Ambekar & R.A.Rodrigues, for Respondent no.1. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 25th August, 2008. P.C.:- 1. All the three petitioners are employed with the Cantonment Board, Deolali. A departmental inquiry was held against all of them on the charges of misconduct. The charges levelled against them are almost identical. The departmental inquiry held was common, and therefore, all three petitions can be disposed of by common order. Two charges levelled against the petitioners as observed above are of the similar nature. The petitioner in writ petition no.3619 of 2006 was working as Sanitary Inspectgor. The petitioner in writ petition no.4128 of 2006 was working as Junior Engineer and the petitioner in writ petition no.4131 of 2006 was working as Cashier. The charges related to the engagement of casual employees 3 and making payment. We quote the articles of charges levelled against the petitioner in writ petition no.3619 of 2006 as the charges levelled against the petitioners in other two petitions are similar. They read as under:- “I. That the said Shri.MI Khan while performing his duties as Sr.Sanitary Inspector, Cantt. Board Deolali, in the year 92-93 had engaged casual labour on may occasions for cutting grass, wild growth, cleaning of nullahs, tree plantation from the open market instead of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. II. That the said Shri.MI Khan while performing his duties as Sr.Sanitory Inspector, Cantt. Board Deolali in the year 92-93 had engaged casual labour on many occasions for cutting grass, wild growth, cleaning of nullah tree plantation etc and prepared payment vouchers/ muster rolls fraudulently during the period Feb 92 to Oct 92 and drawn the payment of daily wage amount in the name of persons shown on the muster roll/ payment voucher but payment had been made to the individuals other than those whose names appear on the muster roll/ payment voucher.” The charges against the petitioners substantially 4 were that they engaged persons, who were not sponsored by employment exchange, as casual labour, and while making payment it was shown that the payment has been made to the persons who have been sponsored by the employment exchange. Thus, they falsified the record. Both the charges have been held to have been proved by the inquiry officer and punishment of removal from service was imposed. The appellate authority on finding that though the charges have been proved, the initiation of inquiry after almost 10 years of occurrence of event to which the charges related, reduced the punishment from removal to compulsory retirement. A revision has been filed against the order of the appellate authority that is revision application. The present petition has been filed against the orders of the appellate authority and the revisionary authority. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners. We have gone through the record. There is no dispute that because the persons whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange and were on muster roll did not report for duties and therefore, other persons were engaged. The defence was that this was done pursuant to the oral order 5 passed by the Superior officer. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the disciplinary authority, the inquiry officer as also by the appellate authority and it has been observed that even assuming that such an order was given by the Superior officer, it being a irregular order, the petitioners should not have acted on that order without a written order being passed. However, in our opinion, second charge is of more serious nature because it relates to falsification of record, because, even according to the petitioners, the persons whose names are on muster roll did not report for duty, and therefore, according to the petitioners, they were not entitled to payment, however, the record shows that it is they who have been paid. If the petitioners are right in contending that the persons whose names are on muster roll did not report for duty then the record should not have been prepared showing that payment has been made to them, and if the payment has been made to them because they have worked then the petitioners should not have engaged other persons whose names are not on muster roll. In our opinion, there is definite material available on record to support both the charges. In fact factual position is not disputed 6 even by the petitioners. In our opinion, the second charge relates to falsification of the record, and therefore, it was of more serious nature and therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the order passed of punishment of compulsory retirement which makes the petitioners eligible to receive gratuity and normal pensionary benefit is in consonance with law and justice and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The petitions therefore, fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)