1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1329 OF 1998 Sudhakar S/o Nageshrao Pathrikar Died – L.R. : Smt. Shakuntalabai Sudhakarrao Pathrikar Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Vaishnav Galli, Sai Road, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 3. The Commissioner (Divisional), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. 5. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Jalna. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P. V. Daware, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 25/06/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner vide the present petition seeks relief of quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 27/1/1981 issued by respondent no. 4, so also seeks sanction of pensionary benefits. 2. The present petitioner was appointed as Gram Sevak on 27/6/1960 and his services were transferred to Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. 3. On or about 25/4/1978, the petitioner was suspended and departmental enquiry was initiated against him on charges of misappropriation. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The record shows that opportunity was given to the petitioner and he had also participated in the said proceedings. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani on receipt of the enquiry report, issued second show cause notice to him and thereafter passed order dismissing the petitioner from the service on 27/1/1981. 4. It is the contention of Mr. Daware, the learned counsel for the petitioner that even a criminal case was filed against him and he was acquitted in the said criminal case on 30/9/1997. In view of the fact that he was acquitted in the said case, the order of dismissal ought to have been set aside and he should have been reinstated in service. He has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Lal V/s The State of Haryana & others reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court - 1310. The said Judgment is on altogether different premise, in the sense that the employee 3 therein was placed under suspension on ground of pendency of criminal proceeding. His services were terminated only on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings. Subsequently, said employee was acquitted in criminal case. 5. In the present case, the order of dismissal is not pursuant to the filing of the criminal case, but departmental enquiry as per law was initiated against the petitioner. The principles of natural justice were followed, the petitioner was given every opportunity in said departmental proceedings and finding him guilty in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has not challenged the said order of dismissal by filing Appeal as is provided by the statute. The said order of dismissal has now been challenged after 17 years before this Court. 6. In view of the fact that the respondents have followed proper procedure as laid down and the findings of the departmental enquiry were never challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. The petition suffers from delay and latches i.e. challenging order of dismissal after 17 years. 7. We do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1329.98 4