An order of affirmation must contain some reasons, at least in brief, to show that the appellate authority has applied its mind.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by Director, Marketing, Maharashtra State in an appeal, being appeal No.32 of 2018 under section 52B of the Maharashtra agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) act, 1963 ('aPM act, 1963') on 4th august 2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the penalty of withholding three annual increments for three years imposed by the Secretary, Mumbai agricultural Produce Market Committee, by an order dated 17th February 2018, came to be dismissed by affrming the said order.

3. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated, in brief, as under :-

(a) The petitioner, who is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, came to be appointed as the Chief Security Offcer at Mumbai agricultural Product Market Committee- respondent No.1, on 1st October 2012. The respondent No.2 is the administrator of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is its Secretary. Respondent No.4 is the appellate and controlling authority of the market committees.

(b) In the year 2005, respondent No.1 had appointed M/s.Marshal Dog Squad Pvt. Ltd. for providing security by deputing 18 dogs and 18 dog handlers, at Market-1 and Market-2, during the night hours. The contract came to be renewed from time to time. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the Security Offcers of the concerned markets were to supervise the attendance of the dogs and dog handlers and verify the correctness of the entries made in the daily and monthly attendance registers. The correctness of those entries were to be further verifed by the Deputy Secretaries of the concerned markets. Thereafter, the security agency M/s. Marshal Dog Squad Pvt. Ltd. would prepare the monthly bills and forward the same to the offce of the petitioner, duly countersigned by the Security Offcers and Deputy Secretaries. Thereupon, the petitioner would obtain the approval of respondent No.3 for payment.

(c) The petitioner claims that on 27th January 2017, after noticing discrepancies in the record maintained by the concerned offcials, the petitioner submitted a report to respondent No.3 pointing out the misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the concerned offcials and M/s.Marshal Dog Squad Pvt. Ltd., with a recommendation to terminate the contract. On the basis of the said report, by an order dated 1st February 2017, the contract with M/s.Marshal Dog Squad Pvt. Ltd. came to be terminated with effect from 1st February 2017 itself. In addition, Shri Bajrang Jadhav, Deputy Secretary (Establishment) was directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the said matter.

(d) Post enquiry, Shri Bajrang Jadhav, in the report dated 17th June 2017, concluded that for the period December 2015 to November 2016, 916 attendances were marked in excess of the actual attendance of the dog handlers during the said period, and thus a sum of Rs.7,01,264/- was paid in excess to M/s.Marshal Dog Squad Pvt. Ltd. It was, inter-alia, recorded that Shri K.K. Raskar, the then Security Offcer, Shri I.R. Masram, Deputy Secretary of Market No.1 and Shri R.a. Patil, Deputy Secretary of Market No.2 had not properly verifed the correctness of the entries in the attendance register and were guilty of negligence in discharge of their duties. In the Supplementary Report, dated 29th July 2017, Shri Bajrang Jadhav further reported that Shri K.K. Raskar was also negligent in the performance of his duties as Security Offcer qua Market No.2.

(e) In the frst report dated 17th June 2017, Shri Bajrang Jadhav had also recorded that Shri C.T. Pawar, Security Offcer, and the petitioner had recommended payment of the charges to the contractor without properly verifying the entries in the attendance register and the said irresponsible act of the petitioner was also prejudicial to the interest of the Committees.

(f) On the basis of the said reports,