1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1337 OF 2006 Shri.Padmanabh Shankarrao Ghose .. Petitioner V/s Hon’ble Governor, State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Subodh Dharmadhikari, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Chandana Salgaonkar for the Petitioner. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. This petition is not on board for admission. By consent of the petitioner we have heard the petition for admission. 2. The petitioner, who is judicial officer has been dismissed from service on the ground of proved mis-conduct. The mis-conduct alleged against him was that the ticket for his air travel from Nagpur to Bombay was bought by a Company by name M/s.Richardson & Crudas, which was a litigant before the petitioner during his posting at Bombay. The second charge was that the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The enquiry officer held that both the charges against the petitioner 2 are proved and therefore punishment of dismissal from service was recommended. 3. The principal argument of the petitioner is that the evidence on record is not enough to prove both the charges against him. With the help of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the record. The enquiry officer found that the ticket for air travel of the petitioner was bought by one Mr.Salvi, who was a representative of M/s.Richardson & Crudas. In support of that, the documents were produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Bareilly Electricity Supply Co.Limited V/s.The Workmen & Others - AIR 1972 Supreme Court 330, contended that as the person who has signed those documents on behalf of the travel agency has not been examined as witness, those documents have not been proved. 4. What is pertinent to be noted here is the explanation of the petitioner. Petitioner has given explanation that he wanted to buy ticket for his air travel from Nagpur to Bombay and so he handed over cash necessary for buying ticket to one Mr.Wankhede and Mr.Wankhede delivered the ticket to him. The explanation of the said Mr.Wankhede is that after the petitioner asked him to buy ticket for him; he met one Mr.Salvi who told him that he should buy that ticket from the travel agency named by Mr.Salvi; Mr.Salvi gave a chit writing 3 something on it which Mr.Wankhede never read; he produced that chit before the travel agency paid cash and received receipt from the travel agency and the ticket, which he handed over to the petitioner. The explanation given by Mr.Wankhede shows that even if the version of the petitioner is accepted the name of Mr.Salvi would be on the receipt. Therefore in our opinion, it cannot be said that any grave prejudice is caused to the interest of the petitioner by introduction of the documents from the travel agency in evidence, without examining the person who signed those documents. It is an admitted position that M.D.of the travel agency was examined as a witness and he has produced the documents from the record maintained by the travel agency. The question to be considered is the probability of events taking place as per the petitioner’s explanation. The enquiry officer, after perusing the evidence on record has recorded the finding that the explanation given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In our opinion it is clear from the record that the ticket on which the petitioner travelled from Nagpur to Bombay by air, was purchased from the travel agency and the record of the travel agency shows that it was booked for by Mr.Salvi of M/s.Richardson & Crudas. In our opinion, therefore, the conclusion that is reached by the enquiry officer that the ticket on the basis of which the petitioner travelled by air from Nagpur to Bombay was purchased by M/s.Richardson & Crudas, cannot be faulted with. The explanation given by the petitioner as to the reason why he decided to travel by air is also not 4 capable of being accepted. 5. It also appears that admittedly there were cases of M/s.Richardson & Crudas decided by the petitioner when he was posted at Bombay. Considering therefore that the petitioner was a judicial officer and that there is evidence on record to sustain atleast the first charge, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner, though we may record that there is something to be said in relation to the finding recorded on the second charge which is held to have been proved. However, as we find that no fault can be found with the finding in relation to the first charge, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the second charge. No interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction with the punishment is called for. Petition is therefore rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)