IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4722 OF 1998 Sunita Bhausaheb Wandekar ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Jagdish Reddy i/b Smt. Suhasini Mutalik for Petitioner Mr. S.N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for the respondent. Writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th March, 1998 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Original Application No.507/1997 filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from the service came to be rejected. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned has been challenged mainly on the following two grounds - that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that the petitioner was not given the copies of the documents which were relied on by the Inquiry officer for considering the charge against the petitioner. Secondly, the copy of the list of witnesses was not furnished to the petitioner. It is contended that in the absence thereof the petitioner could not putforth his case effectively before the Inquiry Officer, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration this vital aspect and therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. 2 The learned AGP supported the impugned order. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the charge against the petitioner was a serious charge of accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner in her reply to the show cause notice specifically admitted the charge and expressed regrets and also assured the Department that she shall not commit such mistake again. The learned AGP further contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted as per the procedure applicable in this regard, in the instant case, the petitioner did not dispute the charge framed against her and therefore the order impugned is sustainable in law. 2 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has admitted the charge in writing. The charge framed against the petitioner was extremely serious. The petitioner has accepted that she had received bribe of Rs.10,000/- and in her reply to the show cause notice, she admitted this fact. Inspite of petitioner having accepted the charge, the department did conduct regular departmental inquiry, examined two witnesses in order to prove the charge, followed the principles of natural justice, given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and it is only thereafter the necessary action of dismissal was taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Considering these facts and circumstances, the order impugned in our view calls for no interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)