1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1049/2011 PRADIP KONDUJI BORNARE ..VS.. STATE OF MAH AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P. Palshikar, advocate for petitioner Shri K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP-for respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 05, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 25.10.2010 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal held that the order passed by the respondents removing the petitioner from service after holding a departmental enquiry was not illegal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal found that the petitioner was charged of being found in a drunken condition while he was working as a Santri Guard on 5.2.1993 at 5.40 p.m. The enquiry Officer after considering the evidence on record found that the charge was duly proved against the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was not disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The Tribunal considered the fact that the petitioner was performing sentry Duty at the Police 2 Headquarter at Gadchiroli where large amount of Arms and Ammunition was kept in the store. The Tribunal observed that the place was very vulnerable to attacks from the naxalites. The Tribunal found that the petitioner who was responsible for securing the place was found to have committed serious misconduct by being under the influence of liquor. In this background the tribunal found that the respondents had correctly applied the circular dated 31.10.1991 for removing the petitioner from service. On perusal of the various documents on record the Tribunal found that there were no reasons to doubt the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the departmental enquiry did not suffer from any infirmity or bias. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on certain statements in the cross examination of the witnesses examined by the respondents is misplaced as the enquiry officer on a reading of the entire evidence on record had found that the charge against the petitioner was clearly proved. The report of the Medical Officer had established that the petitioner consumed alcohol in a quantity which was much above the permissible limit. The Tribunal finally found that there was a correct interpretation of the circular dated 31.10.1991 by the respondent authority while removing the petitioner from service. The Tribunal found that it was equally relevant not to lose sight of the 3 underlined object of the circular dated 31.10.1991, which is to curb an increasing tendency of police personnel who are found misbehaving in a drunken condition, while on duty, by inflicting a deterrent punishment like removal or dismissal from service. We find nothing wrong with the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 26.10.2010. The same is just and proper and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP