1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 312 OF 2009 Sunil Shriram Shedute, R/o. Sahyog Nagar, in front of Dr. P.K. Kulkarni, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. ....Respondents. Shri.B.A.Dhengale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st October 2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 on the proposal/ application filed by the petitioner dated 13th August 2007. 2 3. The petitioner was working as Junior Assistance with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 13th of July 2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The same was also rejected on 6th of December 2005. Being aggrieved thereby a revision was filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 and the same was also rejected on 22nd of May 2006. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5397/2006 before this Court. The same is admitted on the ground of proportionality of punishment. 5. It appears that thereafter the petitioner again submitted an application to respondent No. 2 stating that the punishment was disproportionate. On going through the said representation, the respondent No. 2 conducted fresh inquiry and in the said inquiry though out of four charges, 3 were disproved and only one charge of direct communication with the superior officer was found to be proved. However the respondent No. 2 refused to interfere with the punishment. As such the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 6061/2007. In the said petition, this Court directed the respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition came to be disposed of. The representation of the petitioner in that respect is also rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3 6. Shri. Dhengale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is totally disproportionate and therefore, the said punishment needs to be interfered. The petitioner has also filed undertaking that in the event, the lesser punishment would be imposed on him, he will accept the same and thereafter, render his sincere and honest service to Zilla Parishad. 7. Shri. Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri. K.S.Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2 submit that there is no merit in this writ petition. They further submit that the petitioner had lost at various stages and therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. From the perusal of record, it is clear that though inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on four grounds (i) disobedience of directions of superiors (ii) absence from duties (iii) temporary misappropriation of amount of Rs.350/- and (iv) direct communication with the superiors, the only charge i.e. direct communication with superiors stands proved. So far as all other charges are concerned, they have not been proved. It is thus clear that the petitioner is suffering from the order of dismissal from service for charge of direct communication to the superior. 9. I find that the punishment of dismissal from service for the charge 4 of direct communication to the superior is wholly disproportionate. The petitioner has further filed an undertaking that in the event, any lesser punishment is awarded to him by the respondent No.2, he shall accept the same and thereafter, he shall render the service sincerely. 10. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. The impugned order of dismissal of petitioner from service dated 13st October 2005 and the consequential orders of rejection of appeals, revisions are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No. 2 for imposing lesser punishment other than the dismissal from service. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 6th of July 2009. The respondent No. 2 shall hear the petitioner on the question of punishment. Needless to say that the punishment which would be imposed by the respondent No. 2 would be lesser than the punishment of dismissal and the same would be accepted by the petitioner. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] 5 ssc/wp312.09