1 wp7964-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7964 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Rajendra Abasaheb Deshmukh ..Respondent. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P. for petitioners. Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande for respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. We have heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned A.G.P. This petition is filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 18/02/2010 in Original Application No.1382 of 2009. The operative part of the order reads as under:- " Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the departmental enquiry against the applicant should be finalized within six months from the date of receipt of this order. If no final orders are passed by that date, the applicant be promoted, subject, to the outcome of 2 wp7964-10 the enquiry. In case, he is exonerated, his case for deemed date be examined as per rules. Application stands disposed off. There will be order as to costs. 2. Admittedly, the charge-sheet dated 08/04/2008 was served on the present respondent / original applicant on 19/04/2008 and he submitted his reply thereto on 26/05/2008 when the passed the impugned order, a period of one year and nine months was over from the date of the respondent submitting the reply. The Tribunal granted further six months time to complete the inquiry. We do not find any fault in directing the departmental enquiry to be completed in six months. The only prayer urged before us was to extend the time to complete the enquiry. 3. We are surprised to note that despite the impugned order was passed on 18/2/2010, Shri U.R. Tiwari, Joint Commissioner, (Appeal-I) came to be appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 23/07/2010 in place of Shri C.R. Dhongade on the ground that the said Shri Dhongade was not acquainted with the procedure of Departmental Enquiry. We fail to understand as to why more than five months time was taken to change the Enquiry Officer. Even otherwise, immediately after appointing a new Enquiry Officer, the petitioners could have approached the Tribunal with an application praying for extension beyond the six months' period. This was not done, instead the petitioner waited for 3 wp7964-10 Contempt Application No.110 of 2010, filed by the applicant and the same was placed on Board before the Tribunal on 17/09/2010. This petition has been filed on 29/09/2010 before this Court. In our opinion, there is no case made out to call for interference in the impugned order of the Tribunal and it would be appropriate for the petitioner to apply to the Tribunal for extension of time and it is for the Tribunal to decide the said prayer on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 4. Hence the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)