http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVITI, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R       Delay condoned.      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.1440/-  deducted  from  the  employees  and  had  not deposited unti  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 no 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.      Learned counsel  for the  petitioner sought  to contend that the  petitioner has  not committed any misappropriation and that  he was  forced to  deposit the  money.  We  cannot accept  the   contention  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the petitioner himself  had deposited  the amount.  It  is  then contended that  the preliminary  enquiry  was  not  properly conducted  and,   therefore,  the  enquiry  is  vitiated  by principles of  natural justice.  We find  no  force  in  the contention. The  preliminary  enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry  conducted after  the issue of the charge-sheet. The former  action would  be to  find  whether  disciplinary enquiry should  be initiated  against the  delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry  was held,  the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.      Under  these   circumstances,  we   do  not   find  any illegality in  the order  passed by  the Tribunal warranting interference. The  special  leave  petition  is  accordingly dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2