1 wp8507.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITIONNO.8507 OF 2010 Md. Aleem Ahmed Saheb Dandu : Petitioner V/s. Chairman & Competent Authority, Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the petitioner. Mr.Abhinandan Vagyani, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : MARCH 25, 2011. P.C.: Heard. 2. This petition takes exception to the order of reduction of pay scale passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority which in turn has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 3. The charge against the petitioner is that he issued credit note under 2 wp8507.10 his signature without proper confirmation of the verification about the fate of the high value cheque. The charge as framed states that although the cheque was not actually realised and was returned unpaid on 26.9.2006 on account of insufficient funds, the petitioner proceeded to issue credit note on 29.9.2006. In defence, the petitioner stated that he did so on the basis of telephonic discussion and confirmation about realisation of the subject cheque. The Inquiry Officer has found that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support of his defence. On the other hand, the documentary evidence would clearly establish that the credit note was issued by the petitioner even though the cheque was not realised on the date on which the credit note was issued under the signature of the petitioner. In view of that finding, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed on that basis which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority is unassailable. The argument of the petitioner is that besides the petitioner, his superior and even other Officers of the concerned Branch were involved and no action has been taken against them. The fact that no action has been taken against other Officers cannot absolve the petitioner of the charge as framed against him which has been held to be proved on the basis of documentary evidence. The petitioner, although took a plea that he had issued credit note after due verification, as found by the Inquiry Officer, failed to produce any 3 wp8507.10 evidence in support of that plea. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. 4. Petition is dismissed. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)