1 wp-101-11gr.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2007 ALONG WITH CAW/502/2009 Yashwant s/o. Kisan Nagrale and Ors. .... Petitioners vs The State of Maharashtra & ors. .... Respondents Mr. Rahul Oak for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Karnik for respondents 2 to 6. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : November 15, 2011 P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner who was a judicial officer, challenges the order by which punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the Petitioner. A charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner alleging that he is guilty of mis-conduct which was specified in the charge-sheet. The Petitioner was, at the relevant time, working as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 2 wp-101-11gr.sxw The IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge Jalgaon was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He held that the charges that have been framed against the Petitioner are proved. The nature of allegation made against the Petitioner was that he made the orders in certain cases for consideration other than merits. The Enquiry Officer held that three charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved. Accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer, on the recommendation of the High Court, the State Government imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Petitioner consequently stood retired from the service. We have been informed that during the pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner has expired and his legal representations have been brought on record. 2 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 3 The basic submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the charges that were levelled against the Petitioner are not proved. In other words, he challenges the correctness of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved. In our opinion, in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of 3 wp-101-11gr.sxw India, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence to find out whether the Enquiry Officer was justified in recording the finding that three charges that he has held to have been proved against the Petitioner are actually proved or not. Perusal of the record shows that there is evidence on record which was appreciated by the Enquiry Officer in recording finding that three charges have been proved against the Petitioner. We do not see any reason to dis-agree with that finding. 4 Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, considering that the nature of the charges levelled against the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner was a judicial officer, no interference is called for. The Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 CAW/502/2009 is also disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)