(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 608 OF 1994 1. Balasaheb s/o. Bapurao Ingle, .. Petition dismissed as Age : 29 years, withdrawn as against Occupation : Service. petitioner no.1 as per order dated 8-8-2008 2. Madhukar s/o. Nanaji Gujarkar, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Service. 3. Balikabai w/o. Bhojaji Kadam, Age : Major, Occupation : Service. All resident at Sant Gadge Baba Nagar, Near Mamata Colony, Parbhani. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad. 2. The President, Maharashtra Apanga Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, Pradhyapak Santpure Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Parbhani - 431 401. (2) 3. Head Mistress, Mukh Badhir Vidhyalaya, Parbhani, Run by Maharashtra Apanga Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, Pradhyapak Santpure Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Parbhani - 431 401. 4. Head Master, Mati Mand Vidhyalaya, Parbhani, Run by Maharashtra Apanga Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, Pradhyapak Santpure Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Parbhani - 431 401. 5. The Secretary, Maharashtra Apanga Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, Pradhyapak Santpure Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Parbhani - 431 401. 6. The Deputy Director (Handicapped Section), Mahila, Children & Handicapped Welfare Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune - 1. 7. The District Women, Children & Handicapped Welfare Officer, Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Petition dismissed as withdrawn as against petitioner no.1 as per order dated 8-8-2008. Mr. Sandip S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for petitioner nos.2 and 3. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the management to terminate the services of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the services of the petitioners were illegally terminated without following the procedure established by law. It is, therefore, submitted that the termination is liable (4) to be set aside and the petitioners are liable to be reinstated. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that a detail inquiry was conducted against the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that one of the member of the Inquiry Committee was District Women, Children & Handicapped Welfare Officer, Parbhani. Perusal of the inquiry report would reveal that the charges against the present petitioners were duly proved. Perusal of the inquiry report would further reveal that the petitioners were facing serious charges regarding insubordination and also provoking other employees against the management. One of the charges was also regarding publishing false news items against the management. 4. The Inquiry Committee has found that though there were 17 other employees, there were no complaints against the said employees and the complaints were only against the petitioners. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioners were duly represented before the Inquiry Committee and represented by a Counsel. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the submission of the petitioners, that the termination of the petitioners was not in accordance with law. 5. While exercising jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court is not (5) expected to sit in appeal over the decision of the Inquiry Committee. The limited scope permissible in our jurisdiction would be only to examine as to whether the inquiry was conducted in just, legal and fair manner. Perusal of the inquiry report would reveal that the Inquiry Committee has considered the material on record and has given its report after considering all the relevant aspects. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the proceedings before the Inquiry Committee suffer from unreasonableness or irrationality, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp608