ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. The special leave petition arises from the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in OA No. 558 of 1991. The finding recorded by all the authorities is that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1400/- deducted from the employees and had not deposited until asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the authorities have concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. On that finding, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The disciplinary authority removed him from service. The Petitioner challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.

The Tribunal found that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the disciplinary action. That apart, even on merits also, we do not think that there is any case made out for interference. The finding is that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of the public money and his removal from service is an appropriate order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation and that he was f