(1) WP2022-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2011 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar PETITIONER VERSUS Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS ..... Petitioner in person present. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21st APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.): 1. The petitioner, who was earlier serving as Junior Engineer (Electrical), has made the following prayer in the present writ petition. "In view of two conflicting judgements viz. one judgement delivered by Their Lordships Agrawal and Rebello, JJ dt. 17-12-1996 in (2) WP2022-11 C.A. 6409/96 in C.P. 201/90 (Exh."D" collectively) and other judgement delivered by Their Lordships A.P. Deshpande and Smt. Vasanti Naik, JJ in W.P. 7479/04 in August, 2005 (Copy of Judgement annexed herewith) on the same issue between same parties on same subject matter, it is necessary that this writ petition may be placed before appropriate bench for passing appropriate order in view of two conflicting judgement." 2. Heard the petitioner in person. Perused the written notes of argument. According to the petitioner, Special C.A. No. 1937/1977 filed by him was withdrawn by him concerning the disciplinary action taken against him, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Engineer. He was not called for any enquiry from the year 1981 to 1986, which led him to believe that the enquiry is withdrawn. However, suddenly, behind his back, the enquiry was held and he was removed. Thereafter, he filed various civil applications, writ petitions and was ultimately directed to move Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. (3) WP2022-11 3. In Civil Application No. 6409/1996 in Contempt Petition No. 201/1990, the Division Bench has made the following observations : "Enquiry and the charges levelled against the applicant would not stand as all the charges were there at the time of disposal of the petition and as such, he could not have been considered for promotion." 4. He further submits that in next of the proceeding i.e. writ petition No. 7479/2004, another Division Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 02-08-2005 in paragraph No. 3 inter alia made the following observations : "That during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was subsequently promoted as Deputy Engineer by order dated 22/12/1982" (4) WP2022-11 5. According to him, as these findings are contrary to each other, two conflicting judgements on the same issues between the same parties regarding some other matter are passed. Therefore, the present writ petition may be placed before the appropriate Bench for passing the appropriate order in view of the conflicting judgeemnts. 6. With the aid of the petitioner and upon perusal of the record and notes of argument, we find that in civil application No. 6409/1996 in contempt petition No. 201/1990, the Division Bench did not decide anything but merely directed for filing a proceeding before the special forum i.e. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to the petitioner and while giving this direction, it was observed that the petitioner raised the contention that "once he was promoted, it is assumed that the enquiry and the charges levelled against him would not stand...." 7. In view of above facts, since there is no judgement or a decision on issue contrary to each other, there is no need to place the present writ (5) WP2022-11 petition before the appropriate Bench for passing appropriate order. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp2022-11