1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1921 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Mitilal Agrawal and Anr ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 9. Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for respondent No.6 Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent No.7 Mr. M.K. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.8 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 By this writ petition, a direction is sought against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to initiate enquiry by suspending respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 9, as per the provisions of Maharashtra Civil services (Discipline 2 and Appeal) Rules, 1979 and further to initiate action of disqualification against respondent Nos. 7 and 8, as per the Section 55-A and 55-B of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965. It is also prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to recover the amount of Rs.97.00 lacs from respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and deposit that amount in Municipal fund, Municipal Council, Shahada. 3 Affidavit of Assistant Regional Director of Municipal Corporation has been filed, which states that the Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai has informed the Secretary, Urban Development Department as well as Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik/Regional Director of Municipal Administration for taking appropriate action against the delinquent persons, as per the report forwarded alongwith letter dated 29.12.2009. In other words, the competent Authority has taken cognizance of the grievance made in this petition and has decided to take appropriate action against the concerned respondents depending on the material found against them to indicate their complicity. However, in the communication dated 29.12.2009, the recommendation is made only for recovery of the amount. In our opinion, if there is ample material to indicate complicity of any of the respondents herein or any other person, it would be 3 obligatory on the part of the appropriate Authority not only to take steps to recover the defalcated amount in question but also proceed against them by way of departmental enquiry, if they are Government officials or Municipal Council Officials, by following due process of law. We, therefore, direct the appropriate Authority to take necessary corrective and remedial action against the concerned persons, including the respondents herein forthwith to not only recover the entire amount with interest but also initiate Departmental enquiry and/or criminal action, as the case may be, against all the concerned persons, within six months from today. 4 Needless to observe that this order is not an express of opinion either way in respect to the involvement of the private respondents herein. All questions in that behalf will have to be addressed by the appropriate Authority on its own merits, after considering the explanation offered by the concerned respondents. 5 Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 contended that the grievance brought before this Court cannot be looked into at the instance of the petitioners herein, who themselves are involved in the episode in question. We place this submission on record. However, we do not find any merit in the submission, as this petition has been 4 entertained as Public Interest Litigation. The directions issued herein are in the public interest and not to subserve the interest of the petitioners, as such. We make it clear that if the petitioners are involved in the episode in question, it will be open to the appropriate Authority to proceed even against them in accordance with law. 6 Petition disposed of on the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/