[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2449 OF 1983 PETITION NO. 2449 OF 1983 PETITION NO. 2449 OF 1983 Sony Gangaram Kokare ... Petitioner. Vs. Supreintendent of Prohibition and Excise and another. .... Respondents. None for the petitioner. Mr. Pradep Yadhav AGP for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar and and and Sri Sri Sri A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : July 7, 2008. : July 7, 2008. : July 7, 2008. P.C. 1. None present for the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. We have perused the contents of the petition and annexures thereto. The facts stated in the petition are not disputed or denied by the respondents. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the Order dated 6th February, 1981 issued by respondent no. 2 an amount of Rs.3114.50 has been [ 2 ] deducted from his salary on assumption that the tenement which he was occupying pursuant to the Order allowing him to occupy the said tenement in his official capacity, were sublet by him. It is his further contention that though initially show cause notice was sought to be issued alleging subletting of the premises by the petitioner, the Competent Authority in the Eviction Case No. 16913 dated 24.12.1982, held that there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner had sublet the premises at any point of time. Considering the said order, according to the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 3114.50 as penalty on account of alleged sublet of the premises by the petitioner. 4. The facts stated in the petition are neither disputed nor denied by the respondents. The annexures to the petition clearly support the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner. Considering the same, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents were not justified in deducting the amount of Rs. 3114.50 from the salary of the petitioner on the alleged ground of subletting the premises. Once the Competent Authority by its order dated 24.12.1982 held that there is no subletting of the premises by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have refunded the amount so deducted from the salary of the petitioner and having not done so inspite of the attempts for the same made by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled [ 3 ] to the reliefs asked for in the matter. 5. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to refund said amount of Rs. 3114.50 to the petitioner, deducted from the salary of the petitioner, within eight weeks from today. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]