1 728710 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7287 OF 2010 Ganesh Krishnaji Lokhande ...Petitioner V/s. Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.G. Londhe with Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for the Petitioner Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Mr. Sandeep Waghmare for Respondent No.1 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned counsel, waives service for respondent No.1. 2. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2 728710 3. This petition seeks to challenge the decision of the Appellate Authority, General Manager (HRM), Bank of Maharashtra, dated 17th January, 2007. 4. The petitioner was proceeded by way of departmental enquiry for charges of alleged misconduct and irregularities while in service. In that enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded finding of guilt against the petitioner. On the basis of the said opinion, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 17th January, 2007, issued order of termination against the petitioner. That decision was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 3. The Appellate Authority has adverted to the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner to assail the opinion recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. However, after adverting to the said grounds, the Appellate Authority has not addressed itself to the said contentions, one way or the other, and instead, straightaway proceeded to examine the issue regarding the justification for imposition of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. In other words, the Appellate Authority has merely adjudicated the issue regarding the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. This grievance made by the petitioner is reinforced from the order of the Appellate Authority. 3 728710 5. As aforesaid, the Appellate Authority merely made reference to the 10 points urged on behalf of the petitioner, however has not made any effort to consider the correctness or otherwise of the said grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner on merits of the opinion recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which was the basis for the Disciplinary Authority to pass order of termination against the petitioner. That challenge goes to the root of the matter, inasmuch as, if the petitioner were to succeed in persuading the Appellate Authority to overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, it would necessarily follow that the order of termination passed against the petitioner cannot stand. 6. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No.3, which is impugned before us, and instead, relegate the petitioner before the Appellate Authority for re-consideration of the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today. All questions in that behalf are left open. 4 728710 7. This Writ Petition succeeds on the above terms. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.