1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8325/2005 Suresh Namdeorao Potpallewar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Smt.M.N.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Shri R.P.Phatake,A.G.P. for Respondents State .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22/3/2010 ORAL ORDER : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2] The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against order of recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs.1,52,865/-. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Sectional Engineer in Irrigation 2 Department at Ambajogai, District Beed. The construction of Ambalwadi percolation tank was undertaken during the said period. The petitioner was posted at the said place from 1/8/1990 till 31/10/1993. The actual work commenced on 28/4/1992. The measurement of the work done by the contractor was done in the presence of the petitioner on 7/1/1994. It was found that the contractor had executed less work than what was agreed under the contract i.e. to the extent of 8648 Cubic Meters. The department found that the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Engineer Mr.V.B.Dhotre were responsible for the deficiency and dereliction of duties in intimating the fact to the higher officers and for want of supervision. This was insisted because the revenue of more than Rs.3 lakhs was put to loss. The Divisional Commissioner directed the departmental enquiry, which was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted which inducted the petitioner and one Mr.Dhotre. Enquiry was conducted by Additional Collector, Beed. The enquiry report was submitted on 20/4/2001. The enquiry officer found that partly charges levelled against petitioner were established. Based on the same, the Divisional Commissioner passed order on 20/27-8-2003 fixing 3 responsibility on the petitioner and one Mr.V.B.Dhotre and directed recovery of an amount of Rs.3,05,730/- by equally dividing the amounts between these 2 officers. The Divisional Commissioner had initiated enquiry under the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979. 3] The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order passed by Divisional Commissioner, which came to be dismissed by the State on 24/8/2004. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.159/2004 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The matter was contested on merits before the Tribunal. 4] Vide judgment and order dated 23/8/2005, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. 5] Respondent nos.2 to 4 have filed affidavit in reply to the petition. Petitioner filed rejoinder to the same. 4 6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the crucial period, the petitioner was not working at the given place i.e. Ambajogai. He was already transferred. The enquiry was not conducted properly. Petitioner did not get adequate opportunity to represent his case. By placing reliance on the reported judgment in (2009) 1 S.C.C. (L&S) 806 Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V/s Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, the counsel submitted that the dismissal of Appeal by the State was faulty as it lacked appropriate reasoning. Objections were raised regarding manner in which enquiry was conducted and in the submissions of the counsel, no loss was accrued to the revenue and fixing liability on the petitioner was absolutely not warranted. 7] Shri Phatake, A.G.P. supported the order passed by Divisional Commissioner and the Tribunal. In the submission of the counsel, this Court would have limited jurisdiction in the light of the fact that the enquiry report is against petitioner. The Appeal was dismissed by the State and the Tribunal after going through merits of the matter and the record, dismissed the contentions of 5 the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is responsible for dereliction of duty, lack of supervision, which act has caused monetary loss to the Government. 8] We have considered the relevant record placed before us and the submissions advanced and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9] The enquiry officer fixed responsibility on the petitioner and one Mr.Dhotre in view of the enquiry directed by the Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of M.C.S.R. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State. Though we find that the appellate authority did not give sufficient reasons, we find that the Tribunal had discussed in detail the facts of the case viz. submissions of the petitioner and relevant record, and on perusing the record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the work executed by the contractor was actually found short by 8648 Cubit Meters, which was worth Rs.3,05,730/- Therefore, Divisional Commissioner fixed responsibility on these 2 officers, who had duty to supervise 6 the execution of work and conduct measurement and report to the higher officers in respect of any work being found less than what was agreed by the contractor. 10] In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we find that the petitioner had not made out a case to review the order passed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. We do not find this to be a fit case. The Petition revises disputed questions of facts. The Petition lacks merits. Petition is dismissed. 11] Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submitted that the amount under recovery can be recovered from the pension of the petitioner as petitioner is going to retire shortly. The petitioner is free to file appropriate representation with the employer in this regard. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [NARESH H.PATIL] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp8325-05 7