(1) WP7264-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7264 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Sakharam Jawale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the Respondent-State. Mr. C.K. Shinde, advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petition has been filed by an employee who was working in the District and Sessions Court, Beed. He was chargesheeted for having committed acts of misconduct while he was working as a Judgement Clerk in the Decree Department of this Court at its Aurangabad Bench. Essentially, these charges are as follows : (i) that, the petitioner had interpolated (2) WP7264-09 certain words in the operative part of the judgement in Second Appeal No. 189/1979, (ii) that, he had inserted para No. 17A on page 24A of the judgement. 2. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Beed conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner alone could not be considered to be guilty of insertion or interpolation of para 17A and, therefore, he was exonerated of that charge partly. However, as regards the other charge whether he had changed certain words in the operative part of the order, the learned Principal District Judge has found him guilty of that charge. The Disciplinary Authority who was again the Principal District Judge, after hearing the petitioner, has passed the order dismissing him from service, on observing the requisite formalities including that of affording a hearing to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed. (3) WP7264-09 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that when the learned Principal District Judge acting as the Enquiry Officer had found in para 18 of the Enquiry Report that the petitioner could not have inserted para 17A into the judgement, or interpolated the same, the petitioner ought to have been exonerated completely of all the charges. The next contention is that the learned Principal District Judge could not have acted as "a Judge in his own cause". This submission is sought to be fortified by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Yadav and others, etc. v. State of Haryana and others" AIR 1987 S.C. 454. The third submission that was advanced is that the Appellate Authority ought to have passed a reasoned order rather than merely confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. The learned Principal District Judge acting as the Enquiry Officer has found that the petitioner could not alone be held to be responsible for the interpolation of para 17A in the judgement. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the (4) WP7264-09 petitioner partly of that charge. However, this does not mean that the petitioner was found "not guilty" of that charge. At the same time, the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of the other charge and hence, in our opinion, there is no error committed by Enquiry Officer in his report or the conclusions drawn by him. A perusal of the Enquiry Report indicates clearly that the petitioner has been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. 5. The submission that the learned Principal District Judge, Beed has acted as "a Judge in his own cause", in our opinion, is untenable. Under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 permits the Disciplinary Authority to act both as the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. In these circumstances, the learned Principal District Judge, Beed has committed no error in acting as the Disciplinary Authority though he was the Enquiry Officer. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Yadav and others" (supra) has no application to the facts in the present case as we (5) WP7264-09 are required to deal with the Rules as applicable to the petitioner. Significantly, Rule-8 has not been challenged in the petition. 6. The other contention that, the Appellate Authority ought to have passed a reasoned order by considering every grievance enumerated in the appeal about the order passed by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, is without merit. We have perused a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and in our opinion, the Appellate Authority has considered the charges framed against the petitioner, the observations of the learned Single Judge while deciding Civil Application No. 415/2003 and the order impugned before it. It has unambiguously held that the order was correct and that no leniency could be shown to a person who tampers with the Court's records. 7. We see no reason to interfere in the matter. Tampering with and interpolation of a judgement is an extremely serious act of misconduct on the part of an employee in charge of the record and must be (6) WP7264-09 condemned in the strongest terms. The petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp7264-09