1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4621 OF 2009 Arun s/o Gendalal Kudiya, R/o- Sandeshnagar, Pipeline Road, Vasant Tekdi, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Through its Registrar General, (Appellate Authority), 2) The Principal District and Sessions Judge and Disciplinary Authority, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. A.D. Shinde Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner was working as sweeper in the establishment of District and Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. The departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 9th March, 2007. In substance the charge against the Petitioner was that he was not doing sweeping work personally and getting it done at the hands of his wife. After completing work, he was not remaining present in the office. He was not doing the work properly and not signing the muster roll. The Petitioner did not sign the muster roll since 3rd November, 2006 and remained absent from duty. The Petitioner was asked to be punctual in the duties but he did not pay any heed to the same. One of the serious charge against the Petitioner was that on 19th January, 2006 the Petitioner entered the chamber of the then Principal and Sessions Judge 3 in drunken condition where-after he was warned and his medical examination was done and he was prosecuted by the police. 3. The delinquent was issued show cause notice about the proposed departmental enquiry to which he filed his say. The Petitioner's defence was that he was suffering from ailment like tuberculosis and paralysis and the medicine which he consumed, had effect of intoxication. Memorandum of charge, list of witnesses and other relevant documents were served on the Petitioner. The written statement was filed by the delinquent on 20th February, 2007. The Petitioner denied all the charges levelled against him. 4. The enquiry officer recorded the evidence, sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the delinquent and thereafter report was submitted on 3rd May, 2007. The enquiry officer had held delinquent guilty of the charges. Notice of proposed punishment was also issued to the 4 Petitioner, which was replied by him on 2nd August, 2007. The delinquent was given personal hearing by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and after considering the record, the plea, by an order dated 16th January, 2008 the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar accepted the report of the enquiry officer, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly passed order of removal from service under Rule 5 (viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. 5. The Petitioner preferred Appeal under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 before the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, Appellate Side (Administrative Branch) Bombay. By order dated 13th April, 2009 the said Appeal was dismissed on administrative side of the High Court. The previous record and confidential reports for the years 2001 to 2007 were considered 5 along with the fact that the Petitioner was punished earlier in the year 2000 on the charges of absenteeism and there was no improvement of any kind. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not permitted to engage a lawyer a person well versed in law to represent him. The Petitioner was working as a sweeper, he could not gather courage to cross- examine the witnesses. The Petitioner was suffering from tuberculosis and paralysis. The Petitioner did not consume alcohol before entering the chamber of the District and Sessions Judge. It was the effect of the medicine which was wrongly conceived by the District Judge as consumption of alcohol, according to the counsel. Learned counsel submitted that the wife of the Petitioner was helping him as he was not keeping well. 7. All these issues raised, were considered by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and 6 the administrative committee of the High Court. An affidavit in reply is filed by the Respondent No.1 Registrar (Legal) before this Court. In Para 13 of the reply the deponent states that the Petitioner was punished for absenteeism in the year 2000, still the Petitioner continued to indulge into the same activities and did not improve. The Petitioner has given false excuses, which could not wipe out his misconduct. In Para 15 the deponent states that factum of Petitioner's entering in the chamber of District and Sessions Judge in drunken condition, has been proved during the course of enquiry. 8. We find that the conduct of the Petitioner of entering in the chamber of the District Judge in drunken condition, has to be taken seriously. It amounts to serious misconduct. We do not find any material on record to disbelieve the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority. The issue was no that complicated for which the Petitioner had to seek assistance of 7 lawyer. Strict discipline in discharge of duties in the Court by the staff is essential. There cannot be compromise on that count. No leniency can be shown to the Petitioner. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Authorities. 10. There is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR10/wp4621.09