(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3550 OF 1994 Manik s/o. Dagadu Jadhav, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service (at present Nil), R/o. Latur, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The District Judge, Latur, District : Latur. 3. The Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Bombay. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 served (Absent). ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders dated 31st December 1993, passed by respondent no.2, in Departmental Inquiry Nos. 2/93 and 5/92, has approached this court. 2. The petitioner was working as a Peon in the office of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udgir. The aforesaid two Departmental Inquiries were intiated against the petitioner, one for his unauthorized absence between 13-5-1992 to 17-5-1992, and secondly, for unauthorized absence since 28-9-1992. In the departmental proceedings, it was found that the petitioner had committed misconduct and, as such, was awarded punishment of removal from service. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the departmental proceedings are vitiated on account of various illegalities. It is submitted that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. It (3) is further submitted that one Shri H.L. Kamble, who was a witness in one of the inquiries, was Presenting Officer in another inquiry and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated by bias. 4. The scope of interference by this court, while examining the validity of departmental proceedings, is very limited. This court is not expected to sit in appeal over the findings in departmental inquiry. The interference is warranted only when it is found that the departmental proceedings are vitiated on account of serious lacuna in the procedure adopted or where findings recorded are so perverse and arbitrary, that they are liable to be interfered on the ground of Wednesbury's reasonableness. In the present case, it can be found that apart from two proceedings, the petitioner has been found guilty of absence without permission on earlier occasions also. It has been found that the entire service period of the petitioner was much less than the days on which he has actually worked. In these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority has found that the continuation of the petitioner was not in the interest of the institution. The findings, therefore, cannot be termed to be either perverse or arbitrary. 5. In so far as contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, regarding bias is concerned, (4) undisputedly, said Shri H.L. Kamble, who was Presenting Officer in one case and a witness in another case, it is not the case of the petitioner, that the said Shri H.L. Kamble was an Inquiry Officer in one case. It is a settled law, that for establishing a case of bias, the onus is on the party to place on record the relevant material, that an authority deciding the matter has acted in a biased manner and unless such material is placed on record, it is not permissible for the court to examine the said issue. No such material is placed on record, neither the the person, against whom the allegation of bias has been made, is impleaded as party respondent. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the contention in that regard. The petition is devoid of any merit. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3550