1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3244 of 1994 Bhagwant s/o. Ramrao Motewar Age 45 years, Occ. Service R/o. Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1] The District Judge at Nanded. 2] High Court of judicature of Bombay at Bombay through its Registrar Fort, Bombay 3] The State of Maharashtra Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Bombay-32. Respondents Mr. V.D. Gunale Advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] : 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4th July, 1992, passed by the learned District Judge, 2 Nanded, thereby accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposing punishment of reversion on the petitioner. 2] Shri Gunale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities have erred in holing that the petitioner was guilty for less amount in the Muddedmal Property. He submits that , as a matter of fact, the Muddemal property was in the custody of his superiors and as such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the less amount found in the Muddemal property. He, therefore, submits that the punishment of reversion is grossly disproportionate to the charges proved. 3] The scope of interference in the Departmental proceedings while exercising writ jurisdiction is very limited. This court is not expected to sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. The limited scope available is to find out, as to whether the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer withstands the test of fair play, rationality and reasonableness. 4] From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to submit his case. Perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer would also reveal that he has taken into consideration the relevant material. IN that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from irrationality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. In so far as the submission regarding the punishment being disproportionate is concerned, we, on the contrary found that a lenient view has been taken, in view of the fact that, this was not the first time that the petitioner was proceeded in a Departmental Enquiry. On an earlier 3 occasion, he was found guilty for the charges of corruption and a minor penalty was imposed on him. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the contention on that count also. The petition, being without any substance, the same is dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp