1 wp 3164.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3164 OF 2010 The Chairman of Revocation Committee M.S.E.D.C. L. and others .. Petitioners Versus Mukund S/o Narharrao Chavre .. Respondent Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. F. Patni, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna allowing the complaint filed by the present respondent. 2. The respondent was charge sheeted as a criminal complaint was filed against the respondent for having caught in the trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The summary enquiry was conducted and the punishment was imposed on the 2 wp 3164.10 respondent withholding seven (7) increments. The respondent filed complaint before the Industrial Court bearing Complaint ULP No. 52/2007. The Industrial Court allowed the said complaint. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 3. Shri Godsay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the punishment was imposed on the respondent withholding seven increments, the respondent was convicted by the Sessions Court and pursuant thereto was terminated from service. Subsequently, though he has secured acquittal in an appeal filed before this Court, still the order of termination is not set aside and in view of the fact that the respondent is terminated the order impugned cannot survive. The learned counsel further contends that the punishment has been rightly imposed on the respondent invoking relevant regulations. 4. The act for which the respondent was been charged cannot be said to be an act of a minor mistake, it would tantamount to a grave misconduct and for the same the punishment i. e. imposed is not contemplated under the regulations. The Industrial Court has discussed the said aspect in detail. In view of the fact that the regulations invoked by the petitioner while imposing 3 wp 3164.10 punishment of withholding seven increments was not at all proper. No error is committed by the Industrial Court in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent. In view of that writ petition is sans merit and same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11