JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Pay and Accounts Officer as also the Appellate Authority.

2. Few facts necessary for adjudication of this petition stated briefly are that the petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Pay and Accounts Office, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay. When the petitioner was functioning as a clerk in the Pay and Accounts Office at Bombay, it was alleged that in the year 1976 some bills were forged by the petitioner and prepared the cheques thereon. It was considered to be a fraud practice by the petitioner and therefore complaint was lodged with the police. The police after investigation filed a criminal case in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein the learned Judge observed that there is no evidence against the accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. petitioner and another employee, and he therefore discharged the accused persons. After the petitioner was accordingly discharged he was reinstated in service from suspension and nothing has done in the matter for a period of three years. Thereafter in the year 1981 charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein two of the charges were same as in the criminal case and third was pertaining to the misuse of the Government quarters by allowing someone else to stay there. Enquiry was duly conducted thereafter and ultimately on 21st April, 1986 order of punishment was passed. The order passed by the Disciplinary and Enquiring Authority reads as under:

"I the undersigned do hereby dismiss, Shri. G.B. Patil Power Division Clerk, from Government Service with effect from 21-4-1986 (A.M.)".

Sd/-

Pay and Accounts Officer.

3. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against this order to the director and the director dismissed the appeal by a single line, saying that the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority is correct and needs no interference.

4. Thereafter the petitioner filed further appeal before the Government of Maharashtra and that also rejected by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. All these orders therefore were challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on several grounds and it was contended that several illegalities have been committed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, and therefore the order of removal from service is vitiated. It was contended that all principles of natural justice have been violated. No reasons have stated by the Disciplinary Authority for dismissing the petitioner after departmental proceedings and he has not marshalled the evidence against the petitioner if there was any. According to the learned Counsel, therefore the Tribunal ought to have set aside those orders and reinstate the petitioner. The Tribunal not having done that the petitioner has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the following grounds.

1) The entire order of the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated for total absence of evidence. It is a case of no evidence and therefore this Court can in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, intervene in the matter and set aside those orders.

2) The order of the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence and therefore is liable to be set aside.

3) No evidence was recorded of any kind by the Enquiring Authority or Disciplinary Authority and reliance has been placed only on certain alleged admissions, alleged to have been made by the petitioner before the police during the enquiry of the complaint made under section 420 I.P.C. etc. Even though admissions are not proved, the concerned Police Office before whom it is alleged to have been made is not examined to prove that the statement was made before him. Therefore it is a case of total lack of evidence, resulting in vitiating the entire order.

4) The ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document