1 W.P.No.7853/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7853 OF 2009. Trimbak S/o Mahaling Baware, Age 59 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Kaij, Kanadi Road, Kaij, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Medical Education Food and Drugs Revenue Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, Bandre-Kurle Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-51. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Nath Market, Aurangabad. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Vivek Dhage, advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. 2 W.P.No.7853/09 CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Reserved on : 07.01.2011. Pronounced on: 17.01.2011. ORDER (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 3.7.2007, passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, thereby dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Latur. The petitioner had applied for loan for the purchase of constructed house but the petitioner started work of the construction of the house on the plot which he had purchased in the year 1990. The petitioner also obtained loan from the Bank. 3. The Department contended that the petitioner committed misconduct on the count that he had applied for the loan for a constructed 3 W.P.No.7853/09 house, whereas he made the construction of the house on his own plot and also that the petitioner forged the signature of the Assistant Commissioner, for obtaining the loan from the Bank. The Departmental Inquiry was held against him and the applicant was compulsorily retired by order dated 1.12.2001. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Government. The Government dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged the same before the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dismissed the said Original Application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has admitted that he has forged the signatures of the Assistant Commissioner. The learned counsel further contended that he had taken the loan for 4 W.P.No.7853/09 the purpose of house. Whether the petitioner purchases the constructed house or makes the construction of his own house is not relevant. Moreover, there are no allegations of misappropriation of the said amount. According to him, the punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the order passed by the appellate authority is without any reason. The order does not show application of mind on the part of the appellate authority. 5. Per contra, Mr.Shaikh, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader submitted that the Tribunal after considering the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion. The petitioner has forged the signature of the Assistant Commissioner for obtaining the loan from the Bank. The petitioner had obtained loan of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) from the Bank and for that purpose he committed forgery by making false signature of Assistant Commissioner, FDA, Latur on letter dated 19.7.1997 and submitted the said document to the Bank. On 5 W.P.No.7853/09 receipt of the said letter, the Bank asked for the confirmation of the said letter to the Assistant Commissioner, FDA, Latur, vide letter dated 16.8.1997. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Commissioner got the knowledge that petitioner has committed forgery by making his signatures and the Assistant Commissioner, FDA, Latur refused the confirmation. The explanation was called. The petitioner verbally admitted the guilt and the petitioner was given strict warning. When this fact came to the knowledge of the Respondent No.2, it was decided to hold departmental inquiry and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of both the charges. The appellate authority confirmed the finding of the Inquiry Officer and the decision taken. As such there was no necessity for giving detailed reasons by the appellate authority. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader further contended that the Tribunal has also considered all the aspects of the matter and has dismissed the Original Application. 6. The scope of judicial review under 6 W.P.No.7853/09 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited. This Court can not embark upon the investigation of factual matrix. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Inquiry Officer has followed the procedure and proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. On appreciation of all the material on record, the Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the charges are proved. Even the Tribunal on threadbare consideration of all the material on record has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had committed forgery i.e. forging the signature of the Assistant Commissioner, FDA, Latur, while submitting the application to the Bank. The punishment of compulsory retirement as such can not be said to be disproportionate. 7. In light of the above, no error is committed by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment. The Writ Petition being sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) 7 W.P.No.7853/09 asp/office/wp785309