K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

Heard.

2. Rule was issued on 5.7.2006. Interim relief was granted in favour of the writ petitioners.

3. Petitioner no. I Suresh (since deceased, hence deleted) was President of Municipal Council, Amalner. Petitioner No.2 Pandurang Sonwane. at the material time was serving as Chief Officer while, petitioner no.3 Suresh Moreshwar Vaidya, a retired Revenue Officer was nominated as Inquiry Officer.

Mr. Golegaonkar now clarifies that wrong statement was made on March 4th, 20 J 3, about death of petitioner no.3, however, petitioner no. 3 is alive; but, bed-ridden. Earlier order of dismissal, to his extent, is recalled.

4. Respondent no.3, complainant, was an employee in Municipal Council working in Octroi Department for a period from 1996 to 2001. Audit was carried, which indicted respondent no.3 and N.R. Khairnar, Junior Clerk in the Tax Department of the Amalner Municipal Council with misappropriation of Rs.1,75,516.85. Shri Khairnar, in his representation dated 15.6.2002, accepted misappropriation and user of the part of amount for personal purposes owing to ill health of his wife. He asserted that it was not j with ill motives or misappropriation. It was t under compulsion of the circumstances, he utilized Council's Money.

5. There was no representation or acceptance of the guilt by respondent no.3 Rambhau. Consequently, Depat1mental inquiry was initiated against him through Presenting Officer and by appointing Inquiry Officer, referred to above. Requisite procedure was followed and Inquiry Officer held Respondent No.3 guilty for the charge framed against him by order dated 30.9.2004. The matter should have, indeed, ended at this stage as, by that time, the amount to the share of respondent no.3 was paid by him with Municipal Council; however, it did not. Respondent no.3 ensured pressurizing by communication to the Inquiry Officer and the officers of the Council through five named members of the Municipal Council. Amalner, referred in second charge. The conduct of respondent no.3 was found derogatory while dealing with superiors and, in particular, while entering into correspondence. It was also pointed out that in the first inquiry, in all processes and at various stages, he has attributed malice against the inquiry officer; even, made representation to apex bodies of the labour / employees organizations. The charge on second inquiry was transmitted to respondent no. 3, however. he felt aggravated in his feelings and nursed an impression that he has been cornered by the Inquiry Officer, the President, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. This prompted him to file subject proceedings for infraction of Section 3 (1) (viii), Section 3(1) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC & ST Act).

6. We have discussed texture of entire matter. If respondent no.3 felt aggrieved 'y orders of the first inquiry, indicting him, he had remedies of appeal and representation. He id not resort to legal recourse, went on influencing the officials in the inquiry or creating spikes in it. Naturally, he was required to face second inquiry. These are procedural aspects followed scrupulously by the Municipal Council or by the inquiry officer. Reading the papers, it does not smack of any vendetta nursed, encouraged or generated either by the inquiry officer or by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. We note, the inquiry officer was not from the Municipal Council but, retired revenue official from Bhusawal. He was discharging his pious obligation to coordinate the activities but has paid its price by facing subject prosecution.

7. Section 3(1 )(viii) and Section 3( 1 )(ix) of the SC & ST Act reads as under:

"Section 3( 1): Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:

(viii) Institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(ix) Gives any false