VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 613 OF 2003 Shriram Ganesh Pendse Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Respondents Mr. M. R. Bubna, for Petitioner. Mrs. S. M. Modle, for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : May 2, 2008. PC :- . The petitioner retired from service of the respondent Corporation on 31st of March 2000. He was served with show-cause notice on 14th July 2000. He replied the same on 25th July 2000, thereafter an inquiry was conducted, inquiry report was given on 5th January 2001 and order was passed on 19th April 2001, withdrawing his entire pension subject to minimum admissible in terms of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Pension Rules 1953. This court is conscious of the fact that in view of this proceedings, this court is not in a position to act as - 2 - appellate court. The findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority was confirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner, which had dismissed the appeal by its order dated 7th August 2002. The charges against the officer were mainly that he had not done the supervision work in a proper manner, which has resulted in releasing 780 M. Tons of of M.S. Plates/scrap to the contractor, causing loss to the tune of Rs.1.53 Crores to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was in charge engineer at relevant time. The counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner/engineer was not in dereliction of his duty on his part, as no discrepancy in his work was pointed out at any stage therefore, he could not be held responsible for excess supply of the material of 780 M.Tons to the contractor. Even if this argument is accepted, the facts setout were also sufficient to hold the petitioner responsible and that would not entitle the petitioner to the benefit of exonerating him from the charges levelled against him. The inquiry officer after going through records and hearing the petitioner, found that all the charges were proved against him. The report of the inquiry officer is not a report which can be termed as perverse as there was evidence before the inquiry - 3 - officer to come to the conclusion to which he had arrived. It is not the case of no evidence at all and as such the findings and conclusions of the inquiry officer cannot be termed as perverse. In reply to one of the charges, the petitioner himself has stated there were 150 M. Tons lying in the contractor’s workshop, even after completion of the contract and the conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer based on this reply was that it would show that an excess material had been supplied to the contractor. We do not find that such a conclusion can be termed as perverse. Similarly on other charges the inquiry officer found that at no stage, the petitioner had pointed out that excess material supplied to the contractor may be by other officers, who were also responsible. But in our view that cannot be a reason to leave the petitioner scot-free. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the inquiry is disproportionate. We do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as there has been a loss of more than Rs.1.50 Crores to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner in the inquiry does not, in our opinion, appear to be - 4 - disproportionate. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J. ] Sd/- [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]