1 WP 2552.2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2552 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mahesh H. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court thereby dismissing ULP Complaint filed by the Petitioner. 2. The departmental enqiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty and was held responsible for the loss of Rs. 3,11,250/- and his Pay and increment due on 12/05/2001 was stopped. The petitioner filed departmental appeal. The same was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed Complaint ( ULP ) No. 250 of 2004 before the Industrial Court seeking cancellation of the order, by virtue of which the petitioner was held 2 WP 2552.2009 responsible for the loss and his increments were stopped. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel submits that the documents on record i.e. in-house communication would suggest that the case put- forth by the petitioner is genuine one. The petitioner had received the orders from the President to supply Onion to a party from Raipur. On that day itself, the petitioner had communicated this fact to the General Manager vide communication dated 16/2/2002. Even the Section Officer had found that the petitioner has, in fact, benefited the committee and was not responsible for any loss. These aspects have not been considered by the authorities. The learned counsel further states that the petitioner acted on the orders of his superior and the said act was not on his own volition. Still the same has not been considered by the authorities. 4. This Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not embark upon the decision taken but would only view the decision making process. The Industrial Court has observed that the petitioner 3 WP 2552.2009 himself has stated that he has no grievance about the proceedings in the departmental enquiry. It has also been observed that there is no material on record to show that the President had in fact directed the petitioner to dispatch the goods. The said finding of the Industrial Court is based on the evidence on record led before him, so also the departmental enquiry. The said view is a plausible view. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction. 5. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 2552.2009