1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2221 OF 2008 Mr.Chander Menghani Clerk at Jai Hind College, Mumbai. ..Petitioner V/s. The Principal, Jai Hind College, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.M.Ganguli for petitioner. Mr.A.G.Kothari for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The only argument, that is canvassed before this Court, is that the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer, as also by the Tribunal clearly overlooks the defence of the Petitioner that the forms were to be in fact filled in by Vice-principal or Professor in charge of Arts/Science/Commerce in the college and not by the junior clerk. The specific stand taken by the Petitioner was that the work of filling up of the form was neither assigned to the Petitioner nor was his duty. Significantly, except stating that position in paragraph-4.2 in the 2 defence argument, the Petitioner has not produced any tangible evidence to establish the fact that the practice followed was that the vice-principal or professor in charge was responsible for filling up of the form, as such. No independent evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner to substantiate that position. On the other hand, the argument of the Petitioner before the enquiry officer as also the Tribunal was that it was not a part of his duty to send forms received from the concerned student. That aspect has been elaborately considered by the enquiry officer as well as the Tribunal keeping in mind the evidence of the witnesses and in particular, contemporaneous record in the form of Exhibit-8, which spells out the nature of duties of the Petitioner. The Petitioner in fact during evidence has admitted the existence of Exh. 8. The Tribunal after considering all aspects of the matter proceeded to hold that there was no substance in the defence of the Petitioner that the work of sending form to the University was not specifically assigned to the Petitioner nor was the duty of the Petitioner to do so. That view taken by the Enquiry Officer has been confirmed by the Tribunal, which in my view, is founded on sufficient material on record. To support that position the Tribunal has adverted to the 3 relevant material for recording the said finding. 3. In the circumstances, it necessarily follows that the question of interference in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the finding of fact recorded by the authority below cannot be countenanced. There is no merits in this petition. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)