/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2566 OF 2003 Shri. Narayan Jatan Dhivare ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Shri.M.S. Karnik for Petitioner. Smt.S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 26th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 08/10/2002 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. In the application filed by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Government imposing punishment of denial of pensionery benefits to the petitioner. It appears from the order of / 2/ the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that the Tribunal examined every finding recorded by the enquiry officer in detail and has given cogent reasons for endorsing those findings. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has also dealt with the contention of the petitioner that during the course of departmental inquiry, adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner was not given. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has recorded a finding that adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner was given during the enquiry. During the hearing of the petition the only contention seriously urged by the petitioner was that chargesheet was served on the last date of service of the petitioner and considering the mis-conduct, punishment of denial pensionery benefits to the petitioner, is harsh. 2. We have examined the record. We find that the petitioner was working as Deputy Collector and at the relevant time he was in-charge of the E.G.S., which scheme is meant for unemployed persons in rural areas. The petitioner was extremely negligent in discharge of his duties and could not control his subordinates as a result of which there were malpractices on a large scale in the implementation of the scheme. In our opinion, / 3/ considering the position held by the petitioner and the nature of the mis- conduct which has been proved, the punishment could not be said to be excessive. Taking overall view of the matter and considering well considered order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, no interference at the hands of this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is called for. Petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)