1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5242 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5242 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5242 OF 2008 Sudarshan Yallapa Jannu .. Petitioner. vs. Commandant, SRPF, Group 10, Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the petitioner Mr.V.P.Malvankar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.555 of 2007 dated 04.02.2008 when his application came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Junior Clerk in the Police Department. It appears that the complaint was filed against the petitioner by 2 one Shri S.R.Shaikh, Constable in respect of misbehaviour with the ladies staff on which a preliminary enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter the petitioner was chargesheeted and departmental enquiry was held wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority on the basis of finding of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the petitioner from service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any evidence against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained. It has been particularly emphasised that the complainant himself did not support his complaint and secondly, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, the whole enquiry proceedings stands vitiated and the punishment against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. We have gone through the documents annexed by the petitioner in the petition and find that the victim in the case Smt.Vaidya has clearly implicated the 3 petitioner as a person who has molested her on the relevant day. Not only this, she has also spoken about the petitioner’s conduct in the office with her as well as other ladies staff. In the enquiry, the petitioner was given a fair opportunity. It was specifically called upon to explain why Smt.Vaidya falsely implicated him to which the petitioner could not offer any explanation. Therefore, considering the conduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority were justified in imposing penalty and dismissing him from the service. 6. The impugned order considers all these aspects of the matter and we find that M.A.T. has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner. We find no merits in the petition. The same is dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) 4