1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2860/2009 Manik s/o Gangaram Thorat .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri D.R.Irale Patil,Adv.for petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP for respondents. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 09/07/2009 ORAL ORDER : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1041/2005 dated 3/2/2009, dismissing the Original Application filed by the present petitioner. 2 2. The Original Application came to be filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner taking exception to the order of the Inquiry Officer holding him guilty in respect of the charge of unauthorized correction in property cards. As a sequel to the Departmental Inquiry, the punishment which came to be imposed on the petitioner was the penalty of reduction in three annual increments. As a corollary to the aforesaid Departmental Inquiry, the period during which the petitioner was under suspension was treated as the period under suspension. The petitioner, we are informed, has now attained the age of superannuation. The only challenge which was raised in the Original Application before the Tribunal at the best of the petitioner to the order of the Inquiry Officer was in respect of quantum of punishment. 3. Shri Irale Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that looking to the period during which the inquiry was pending, as well as looking to the period during which the alleged misconduct is said to have committed by the petitioner, the punishment which is imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct which is held proved against the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi V/s 3 Union of India and others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 484. The Supreme Court while examining the question of the punishment being disproportionate to the misconduct, which is proved, at paragraph 18 has held thus : “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 4. It is, therefore, urged by Shri Irale Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly 4 disproportionate to the misconduct which is proved against the petitioner. Counter to the aforesaid submission, Mr.S.K.Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents, has urged before us dismissal of the Petition, on the ground that the petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by the authorities below and no further reduction in the penalty is warranted as the said penalty is not grossly disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. 5. In order to sustain argument that the punishment which is imposed on the delinquent is grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against him, the Supreme Court itself in B.C.Chaturvedi’s case (supra) has held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, should shock the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal. Only in that event, it would be appropriate for the Courts to mould the relief by either directing disciplinary or appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has examined the misconduct which is proved against the petitioner vis-a-vis the penalty which is imposed. The Tribunal at 5 paragraph no.2 while dealing with the contentions of the respondents, has found that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised corrections in the property cards. Thus, the aforesaid unauthorised corrections had been taken for personal gain. This is obvious, as it would increase the Floor Space Index available to the concerned owners in respect of the construction which has already been carried out or which is likely to be carried out in future. In the light of that, therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. 6. We have examined findings recorded by the Tribunal; upon such examination, we do not notice any perversity in the reasonings of the Tribunal to warrant any interference in the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Consequently, this Petition fails and is therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp2860-09