1 wp1603.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1603 OF 2011 KJ C.P. Gadhire )..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. )..Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.781 OF 2011 Union of India & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. C.P.Gadhire ).Respondent ­­­­ Mr.Sandip Marne for the petitioner in WP No.1603/2011 and for respondents in WP 781 of 2011. Mr.Suresh Kumar i/by T.J.Pandian for the petitioner in WP No. 781/2011 and for respondents in WP No.1603/2011. ­­­­ CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 24/3/2011. PC WRIT PETITION NO.781 OF 2011 1 This petition takes exception to the decision of the Central 2 wp1603.11.sxw Administrative Tribunal dated 20.7.2010 which in turn, has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and directed the respondents to reappraise the available material on record. It has relegated the parties before the Inquiry officer for re­ consideration of the case afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. 2 The argument before this court is that the Tribunal has engaged itself in re­appreciation of evidence on record. To wit, the Tribunal has adverted to the evidence of Shri Salunkhe and Shri Phutane to conclude that the opinion as recorded by the Inquiry officer was doubtful. The argument clearly overlooks that the Tribunal has noticed on the basis of evidence collected during the inquiry that the Inquiry officer himself had concluded that there was no possibility of the said two witnesses having met the respondents on the given day, for which reason could not have paid the amount as stated by them before the officers of CBI. This aspect has been completely glossed over by the Inquiry officer. In our opinion, what the Tribunal has done is not to re­appreciate the 3 wp1603.11.sxw evidence but to notice the perversity in the reasoning and approach of the Inquiry officer. On that finding the Tribunal instead of re­appreciating the entire evidence itself, has rightly thought it appropriate to set aside all the orders operating against the respondents and relegate the parties before the Inquiry officer for reconsideration of the case afresh on its own merits. No fault can be found with the said approach of the Tribunal. From the finding of the Tribunal, the conclusion and the remand order as passed by the Tribunal was inevitable. Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition. The same deserves to be dismissed. 3 With reference to paragraph­11 of the impugned judgment, Counsel for the petitioners however, argued that from the said paragraph it is not clear whether the matter is remanded before the Inquiry officer or otherwise. We have no manner of doubt that the Tribunal has set aside the inquiry report as well the impugned order, which would mean that the matter will have to now proceed before the Inquiry officer afresh. 4 wp1603.11.sxw 4 At this stage, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Inquiry officer has already retired. If it is so, nothing prevents the Appropriate Authority to nominate a new Inquiry officer and to continue with the inquiry as ordered by the Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merit. 5 Since the matter has been remanded back to the Inquiry officer for reconsideration afresh, it will be open to the parties to produce further evidence as may be required if permissible in law. All issues in that behalf are kept open. WRIT PETITION NO.1603 OF 2010 1 In view of the opinion recorded while dismissing the petition filed by the Union of India, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition as the only grievance made in this petition is that since the Tribunal has observed that there is no iota of evidence against the respondent, the question of remanding the case did not arise. In our opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be read out of context. That is not the finding of the 5 wp1603.11.sxw Tribunal. Whereas, the Tribunal has remanded the matter on the tentative view that the Inquiry officer has glossed over crucial piece of evidence on record. In other words, the inquiry, pursuant to remand order will have to proceed afresh without being influenced by any observation of the Tribunal in the impugned decision. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)