1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5263 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Shashikant Shankarrao Pathak ... RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for petitioners Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: R.S. MOHITE & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED: 13th September, 2010 ORAL ORDER (PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) : 1. Heard Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P. for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners/ State challenging the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad in Original Application No. 1001/2009 on 31.12.2009. 3. It appears that, the respondent resumed the services of 2 the petitioner as Junior Engineer in the year 1974 and he was promoted as Deputy Engineer in 1982 and thereafter as Executive Engineer in 2007. He attained the age of superannuation on 15.6.2008 and retired on superannuation on 30.6.2008. It appears that, the charge sheet dated 18.6.2008, seeking initiation of departmental disciplinary action against the respondent was served upon him on 11.9.2008. Hence, the respondent herein filed Original Application No.1101/2009 challenging the same before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the said Original Application was allowed by judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 in terms of prayer clauses A, B, C and D-1 therein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the petitioners have impugned the said judgment and order in the present petition. 4. Considering the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules in proper perspective as well as it also appears that initiation of the departmental disciplinary action is beyond four years, as well as the charge sheet appears to have been served upon the respondent on 11.9.2008 i.e. after his retirement on superannuation on 30.6.2008 and hence, we find that this is not a fit case to interfere into the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Maharashtra Administrative 3 Tribunal in the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, present petition stands dismissed summarily. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) fmp/wp526310