- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2171 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1002 OF 2008 ... V.R.Shelke ...Petitioner v/s. The Managing Director, Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation Lt. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Civil Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) - 2 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1002 OF 2008 ... V.R.Shelke ...Petitioner v/s. The Managing Director, Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation Lt. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner challenges the continuation of the departmental inquiry against the Petitioner even after his removal from service. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner by charge sheet dated 19-1-2004. In another inquiry by - 3 - order dated 5th August, 2005 the Petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and was removed from service. That order itself stated that despite removal of the Petitioner inquiry ordered against the Petitioner earlier will continue because that inquiry was also for recovery of loss. Against removal order the Petitioner has filed writ petition in this court, which has been admitted for final hearing. 2. We have perused the charge sheet dated 19-1-2004. Perusal of the statement of allegation accompanying the charge sheet shows that inquiry is also for determining the amount of loss suffered by the Corporation because of the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, despite removal of the Petitioner inquiry can be continued. One more aspect is the Petitioner has not accepted the removal order. He has challenged that removal order by filing a writ petition in this court, which is pending. We see no reason to interfere. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)