(1) 913 Cri.WP-1932.2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1932 OF 2019 DNYANESHWAR S/O SOPAN GITE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Kishor Doke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is seeking direction to initiate departmental as well as criminal action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 in view of the inquiry report of Additional Collector, Osmanabad dated 14.08.2019. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the District Collector, Osmanabad. 3. On going through the record it appears that under order dated 14.08.2019, the Additional Collector, Osmanabad had expressed doubt on the stance taken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom and one Avval Karkoon Sachin Patil. However, under order dated 17.10.2019 the District Collector, Osmanabad had conducted inquiry pursuant to the complaint (2) 913 Cri.WP-1932.2019.odt made by the petitioner and ultimately found S.D.O. Bhoom as well as Avval Karkoon Sachin Patil guilty, but only issued warning instead of stringent punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Collector must have imposed strict punishment, but he only issued warning to the concerned persons. 4. Be that as it may, the Collector has already inquired into the allegations made by the petitioner against the aforesaid persons and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of Collector, he may challenge the same by taking out appropriate proceedings or he may lodge complaint also for initiating criminal prosecution. 5. Under such circumstances, we dispose of this criminal writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings as permissible under law to challenge the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the District Collector, Osmanabad and to take out appropriate proceedings for initiating criminal prosecution against respondent Nos.3 and 4, as permissible under law. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde