1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.544 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to rejection of his applications (Exhibits 85 and 81). By application (Exh. 85), the petitioner prayed that the disputed document (Exh.11) i.e. Receipt bearing No. 5603952 be sent to Handwriting Expert. This application has been rejected by the Inquiry Officer on the finding that it was not necessary to obtain opinion of Handwriting Expert. Secondly, the application was made at a belated stage. Insofar as second reason is concerned, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the fact that the 2 recording of evidence was closed only on 4.8.2009 and the inquiry did not effectively proceed further thereafter. Even so, in our opinion, the grievance made by the petitioner can be considered in the event the petitioner was required to file appeal against the final decision if it were to be adverse to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to agitate before the appellate authority that rejection of Exhibit 85 has caused prejudice to the petitioner. All questions in that behalf will have to be decided by the appellate authority on its own merits. Insofar as application (Exh.81) is concerned, the petitioner prays that the distance between the Copying Branch and the Court, where the delinquent was working at the relevant time, should be measured by appointing Commissioner. Even this application has been rejected on the ground that the attempt of the petitioner is obviously to protract the proceedings. In our opinion, if the petitioner intends to pursue some defence on the basis of distance between the 3 Copying Branch and the Court, it will be open to the petitioner to examine defence witness to elaborate on that position, but there is no need for appointing Commissioner as is requested by the petitioner. In the circumstances, ultimate conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer in rejecting this application is upheld. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is rejected. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) Dt/- 01.02.2010 ndk/c12108