1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3868/2011 [Dr. Ashok s/o Jagdishprasad Tiwari .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri R.S. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 3. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. Reserved on : 18 th August, 2011 Pronounced on : 23.8.2011 1. Heard. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the fairness and propriety of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which ultimately resulted in imposing upon him penalty of stopping of one annual increment with effect on future increment. 3. The petitioner, who holds the degree in Ayurvedic Medicine, came to be appointed as Assistant Medical Officer on 6.7.1992. While he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, 2 Saleghat in District – Bhandara, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In the year 2004, he was served with a charge sheet. Frequent absence from the headquarter, irregularity in the matter of dispatch of joining report and diaries of Health Worker, causing harassment and giving threats to the female staff members, dereliction of duties of other nature, were the charges levelled against him. Assistant Commissioner of Enquiry conducted an enquiry and imposed a punishment of reverting him to his original basic pay. In an appeal before the respondent no.3, the matter was remitted back to the Enquiry Officer for reconsideration. On 29.9.2008, the Enquiry Officer concluded an enquiry by imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. There was second round of appeal before the respondent no.3, who allowed it partly and ordered stoppage of one next annual increment with permanent effect on future increment. 4. It is not the case that the petitioner was in any manner deprived of raising his defence and cross examining the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. The record shows that 9 witnesses were examined and few documents were relied upon by the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held as 3 proved partly and this seems to be the reason for imposing upon him the minor penalty. The contention of the petitioner that after the matter was remanded back to the Enquiry Officer, he should have restricted his findings to Charge No.4 (b) is ill-founded for the reasons that the respondent no.3 by his order dated 31.12.2007 had directed the Enquiry Officer to scrutinize carefully the material pertaining to Charge No.4 (b). It was further directed that the matter be decided on merits after giving an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner. 5. In that light of the matter, neither the order passed by the disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority can be faulted with. It seems that enquiry was held in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that findings recorded during departmental enquiry are normally not interfered with by the court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. From the material placed on the record, it is not possible to hold that the view taken by respondent nos.2 and 3 is perverse or dehors the material placed on the record. We are fortified in our view by the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Niraj Kumar Singh .vrs. Union Bank of India and another, 2008 1 CLR 93. 6. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this 4 petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande