1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5949/2010 (Anupkumar Ratanlal Ragade .vs. Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, and another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2011 Heard Advocate Shri N.S. Talmale for petitioner and Advocate Shri Sunil V. Manohar for respondents no.1 and 2. Perusal of the earlier orders passed in appeal by the appellate authority reveals leniency and, therefore, a direction to appoint petitioner afresh. Accordingly petitioner was appointed afresh with specific observation that if he did not show any improvement, appropriate punishment would be inflicted upon him without holding any departmental inquiry. In view of this order, on 11.9.2006 he was given fresh appointment and clause no.2 therein specifically informs him that he was on trial for a period of two years. The fact that if he fails to mend his ways, he would be punished without holding any departmental enquiry is also incorporated as a condition of employment. Petitioner accepted it and joined duties. 2 Material produced before us shows that thereafter petitioner continued to remain absent and did not bother to send intimation in advance or intimation even during the period of absence. He has communicated his inability only at the time of joining after such absence. There is only one post of Sweeper on the establishment of respondent no.1 and in this situation action taken against the petitioner after giving a show cause notice and after perusal of his explanation, therefore, cannot be said to be improper or then the punishment imposed cannot be viewed as disproportionate. In fact when it was fresh appointment, it is obvious that petitioner was only on a temporary job or a probationer. The punishment has been again maintained by the appellate authority on 17.4.2010. In this situation as we do not see any unreasonableness and the punishment does not appear to be disproportionate, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai