1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.109/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2008 (Baban s/o Damodhar Yenurkar vs. The Secretary, Industry & Energy, Labour Department and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 31, 2009 Heard Shri Mohokar, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, and Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Shri Mohokar, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, states that while issuing notice before admission in original Writ Petition No. 2052/2008, this Court passed the following order on 3.6.2008 : “Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the 2 petitioner from service. The said order is challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not served the copy of the enquiry report nor was heard by the disciplinary authority before passing the order of dismissal. Similarly, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that no document whatsoever pertaining to absentism of the petitioner was provided to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 16.6.2008. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader, waives notice on behalf of respondents.” It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that by the impugned order, writ petition came to be dismissed in view of the statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. It is contended that in the interim order dated 3.6.2008, this Court had specifically mentioned the grievance made by the petitioner that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner nor was given hearing by the Disciplinary Authority including that of non-supply of documents. However, while dismissing the petition vide order 3 dated 8.9.2008, these facts were not taken into consideration, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be reviewed. Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, has disputed the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and submitted that in para (3) of the affidavit filed on behalf of original respondent no.2, the details about enquiry proceedings undertaken by the Authorities against the petitioner are mentioned, i.e. the issuance of charge-sheet, giving opportunity of hearing, allowing petitioner to appoint defence representative, permitting petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and permitting petitioner to file written note of arguments. It is further contended that the petitioner has availed all these opportunities and filed a pursis before the Enquiry Officer wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner did not intend to examine any other defence witness. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is just and proper. We have considered the contentions 4 canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. So far as interim order dated 3.6.2008 passed by us in the writ petition is concerned, it only demonstrates the challenge raised by the petitioner to the order impugned in the writ petition and it does not demonstrate any view or opinion of the Court in respect of cause of action involved in the writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed in view of statements made in para (3) of the affidavit filed by the original respondent no.2. The text of the said paragraph is reflected in the impugned order. This Court taking into consideration the statements made by the respondent no.2 on oath in para (3) of the affidavit concluded that review petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself as well as given number of adjournments. The review petitioner was also given opportunity to file written note of arguments and review petitioner has in fact cross-examined witnesses and submitted pursis that he did not want to examine any other defence witness and closed his side of evidence. This Court taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the 5 respondents followed the principles of natural justice while conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner and, therefore, action taken by the respondents is neither in breach of principles of natural justice nor in violation of any procedure or rule pertaining to conduct of departmental enquiry. Hence, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the review petition. The review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj