1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6694 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra through Presenting Officer, M.A.T., Aurangabad and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Datta Shamrao Chavan .. RESPONDENT Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.Govt.Pleader for petitioners CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 14th October 2009 PER COURT 1. This petition at the instance of the State questions the correctness of the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 5.3.2009, allowing the original application No.165 of 2007 and quashing and setting aside the disciplinary action against the respondent and granting reinstatement with benefit of continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including backwages to the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein had filed Original Application No.165 of 2007 before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal assailing the order of removal dated 24.10.2005 issued as a 2 consequence of the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal at paragraph 17 of the order records that it was constituted on behalf of the present petitioners that only one witness i.e. Mr.Mundhe was examined who had stated to have recorded the statements of various witnesses and those statements have been produced and he had conceded that the persons who had given those statements were never examined. The Tribunal thereafter found that Mr.Mundhe was only an Investigating Officer in a criminal case and he could not depose as to the truthfulness of the statement made by various witnesses which were recorded by him. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the other witnesses ought to have been examined in the departmental enquiry and failure to examine them was a serious flaw in the said enquiry. At paragraph 19 of the order, the Tribunal concluded that the various documents which were demanded by the respondent were not furnished to the respondent and consequently, it was violation of Rule 8 (25) (c) (d) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. The Tribunal also found that the appellate as well as the revisional authorities had passed the orders which were very cryptic and did not contain proper reasons. In the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the original application and quashed the order of removal and granted reinstatement with all consequential benefits to the respondent herein. We have heard Shri Kurundkar, learned Additional Govt.Pleader on behalf of the petitioners who has submitted before us that the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the authorities for a decision 3 afresh. In the light of the aforesaid infirmities in the procedure as well as in the orders of the authorities below, we cannot fault the Tribunal for having allowed the original application and also cannot fault the Tribunal for not having remitted the matter back to the authorities. The order of the Tribunal in our considered opinion is unassailable on any of the grounds raised in the petition. This petition being sans merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/6694.09wp)