:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.5177 OF 2008 NO.5177 OF 2008 NO.5177 OF 2008 Shri.Ravindra Ganpat Bhise ..Petitioner Vs. Joint Commissioner of Police & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.Rajesh M.Kolge for petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 20TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 20TH FEBRUARY,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2006. 2. The factual matrix reveals, that the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 25 read with Section 26 and Rule 3 and 4 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The misconduct that was alleged against petitioner was that he has established extra marital relations with a lady by name Chanda while his legally wedded wife being alive. That lady has filed an application to the department disclosing her relations with the petitioner and on the basis of the said application an enquiry was initiated against petitioner to enquire into the misconduct alleged against him. :2: 3. The petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 and also Clause 414 (2)(3) of the Police Manual. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. An opportunity was given to petitioner and also he was allowed to cross examine witnesses and after completion of enquiry, the punishment came to be imposed. 4. The petitioner lost departmental appeals and thereafter he approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai by way of Original Application No.438 of 2006, since he was not satisfied with the departmental adjudication. 5. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 12th October, 2006, dismissed the Original Application No.438 of 2006, filed by petitioner and thereby endorsed punishment imposed on petitioner. 6. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner did not dispute about the extra marital relationship with a lady by name Chanda. He also admitted that he has two children out of said relationship. We were also taken through entire record by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Department together with impugned order. :3: 7. Having seen the nature of misconduct, legality of departmental enquiry and the cogent findings recorded by the Tribunal, no perversity in the impugned order could be demonstrated by petitioner. The entire matter is based on the appreciation of evidence. This Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. As stated the view taken is a reasonable and possible view. The petition is devoid of any substance. The same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)