1 LPA104.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KJ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.104 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6681 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2006 Municipal Council, Akkalkot & Anr. )..Appellants Vs. Siddharudh Tukaram Pujari & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Ashok Tajane for the appellants. Ms.A.N.Helekar for the respondents. ---- CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 15/12/2010. PC 1 This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, by which learned single Judge has confirmed the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. The concerned workman was in service of the Municipal Council, Akkalkot. His services were terminated on the ground of mis-conduct without holding an inquiry. The concerned 2 LPA104.07.sxw workman filed a complaint before the Labour Court being Complaint No.36 of 1988. The Labour Court allowed the complaint holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated without holding any inquiry. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on the ground of remaining absent without prior permission and shortage of cash collected in octroi naka. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that services of the respondent no.1 has been terminated on the ground of mis- conduct. He however, admitted that no departmental inquiry was held and no charge-sheet was issued against the respondent no.1 but respondent no.1 has admitted his guilt regarding the charges leveled against him. Learned Advocate for the appellants fairly stated that respondent no.1 has not admitted that he has committed mis-conduct or he has misappropriated the amount. Respondent no.1 admitted only the fact that he remained absent and there was shortage of cash collected in the octroi naka. Such admissions cannot be said to be an admission of guilt. It is an admitted fact that no inquiry was held before taking punitive action and this fact has been established. It cannot be said that 3 LPA104.07.sxw learned single Judge has committed any error in upholding the order of the Labour Court. Learned Advocate for the appellants has not pointed out any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court which is upheld by the learned single Judge. Hence, appeal is dismissed. 2 Since learned Advocate for the appellants is unable to point out any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court and has fairly admitted that punitive action was taken without holding any inquiry, the prayer for staying this order is rejected. Learned Advocate for the appellants fairly submitted that the respondent no.1 has now superannuated and there is no question of reinstatement in the service. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the employee is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court. 3 In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No. 208/2006 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J)