101-WP-5553-2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5553 of 2025 Dilip Sudamrao Chourapagar vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE :- 5th DECEMBER, 2025 P. C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 159 of 2022 by which the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner was uphold. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with the Police Department and his entire service record was unblemished. He was falsely implicated in an offence. Mr. Kadu, counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of false charges disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him. He submits that there was absolutely nothing to show that at the relevant time he was Incharge of the Store/Property Room. Mr. Kadu, counsel for the petitioner has further invited our attention to the findings of the learned Tribunal in order to contend that he was not the In-charge of the Store in question. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents stated that the enquiry was conducted in which not only the Police Station Officer of Ambazari Police Station was examined but also various persons in order to substantiate the allegations. The learned Assistant Government Pleader thus contended that there is nothing which was pointed out by the 2025:BHC-NAG:13689-DB 101-WP-5553-2025.odt 2 petitioner to show that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were not based on preponderance of probability and therefore the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in the form of dismissal from service cannot be faulted with. 5. We have gone through the charges made in enquiry and order passed by the Tribunal dated 18.06.2025. The charges in eqnuiry were as under: “Charge No.(i) The applicant serving in Police Station, Ambazari Nagpur, during the period 2004 to 2016 the applicant was Incharge of Store Room. Despite being transferred to Police Headquarter, the applicant did not hand over the charge of Store Room. He was on several occasions intimated in this regard and thereafter the concerned Police Inspector sent some other Staff to the house of the applicant to secure compliance. However the applicant was not available in his house. On 08/12/2015 in presence of two panch witnesses, the applicant was called to the Police Station and the Muddemal Register in the Store Room during the period 2012 to 2015 was checked. The register when verified, revealed that an amount of Rs.37,87,745/- was missing. Since misappropriation of this large amount of money was suspected, the concerned Police Inspector of Ambazari Police Station lodged complaint against the applicant, upon which, an offence punishable u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 353/2015 was registered on 8/12/2015. Charge No.(ii) The applicant while serving at Ambazari Police Station was transferred to Police Headquarters and during this period, the applicant had not handed over the charge of Store Room. Instead the applicant himself was looking after the work of Store Room. The applicant was directed to remain present at Ambazari Police Station for verification, but the applicant avoided attending the Ambazari Police Station and remained absent from duties from 25/08/2015. The entries regarding the same were taken in the Station Diary of Ambazari Police Station on 31/08/2015. Charge No.(iii): The applicant while serving as Storekeeper of Store Room at Ambazari has taken away valuable gold ornaments from the store and mortgaged the valuable gold ornaments in the Sarafa Bazar. These were given to (1) Bandu Vasantra Dhomne, resident of Sai Nagar, Nagpur (2) Dinesh Ramchandra Admane, resident of Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur (3) 101-WP-5553-2025.odt 3 Ashish Shyamrao Bhujade, resident of Mhalgi Nagar, Nagpur (4) Chetan Liladhar Mhaske, resident of Itwari, Nagpur (5) Yeshwant Narendra Yelpur, resident of the Ravi Nagar, Nagpur and after mortgaging the aforesaid valuable gold ornaments to the aforesaid goldsmiths, he had obtained an amount of Rs.7,23,817/-. Thereafter the gold ornaments came to be seized from the mentioned goldsmith. Similarly during the years 2004 to 2015 the amount of Rs.62,93,909/- seized in Gambling Act, cases was also misappropriated by the applicant. Charge No. (iv): The applicant purchased a plot in the name of his wife namely Sau. Devkanya Dilip Choupagar, from Builder Mahakali on Wanadongri Road, admeasuring 1750 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.8,22,655/- and paid an amount of Rs.4,57,000/- to the Builder using misappropriated Muddemal Amount.” 6. The Tribunal while deciding the issue as to whether the present petitioner was the In-charge of the Store or not has relied upon the testimony of the Police Station Officer Mr. B.B.Khade. Relevant portion of his examination is produced as under: “6. The learned counsel for applicant has pointed out the cross- examination of Police Station Officer Shri B. B. Khade. Though Police Station Officer Shri Khade has admitted in his cross- examination that there is no evidence to show that applicant was Incharge of property room, but I the re-examination he has stated that before his posting to the Police Station, Abazari, the applicant was incharge of store/property room. The material portion of cross-examination and re-examination are reproduced below: &myV rikl.kh%& lk{khnkj dza- 1 ;kaps vipkjhps cpko lgk¸; ;kaps orhus myV rikl.kh izau dza- 1 vki.k fnukad 8/12/2015 ps fjiksVZ uqlkj fQ;kZn fnyh R;k fQ;kZnh e/;s vipkjh ;kauk eqn~nseky [kk.;kpk pktZ dks.kh fnyk gksrk vkf.k d/kh fnyk gksrk ;kckcr fQ;kZn e/;s dkghgh ueqn ukgh gs Eg.kus [kjs vkgs dk; \ mRrj & gks;] gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs- izu dza- 2 vipkjh ;kauh pktZ ?ksrY;kph uksan fdaok R;kauh ?ksrysY;k pktZ fyLVph uksan vki.k ikghysyh vkgs dk; \ mRrj & ukgh 101-WP-5553-2025.odt 4 &Qsj rikl.kh%& lk{khnkj dza-1 ;kaph myV rikl.kh uarj fo- pkS- vf/kdkjh ;kaps dMqu Qsjrikl.kh izu dza- 1 vki.k vack>jh iksyhl Bk.;kps bapktZ Eg.kqu use.kqdhl vl.;kps [kqi iwohZiklqu vipkjh ;kaps dMs eqn~nseky [kk.;kpk pktZ gksrk R;keqGs R;kaps dMs lnjpk pktZ dks.kh o d/kh fnyk gksrs gs vki.k lkaxq ‘kdr ukgh- gs Eg.kus [kjs vkgs dk; \ mRrj%& gks;] gs Eg.kus [kjs vkgs- izu dza- 2 vki.k iksyhl LVs’ku vack>jhps bapktZ Eg.kqu pktZ ?ks.;kps [kqi vxksnj vipkjh ;kauh eqn~nseky x`gkpk pktZ ?ksrY;kph uksan dsysyh vl.kkj gs Eg.kus [kjs vkgs dk; \ mRrj %& gks;] gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs- 7. These facts were taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. We cannot find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 8. It is further necessary to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of A. P. vs. Sree Rama Rao, reported in 1963 SCC Online SC 6 has observed “Where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.” Not only this, similar dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of A. P. vs Chitra Venkata Rao reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “21….. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the proedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which authority entrusted with duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence evidence 101-WP-5553-2025.odt 5 may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.” 9. Considering the fact that there is absolutely no perversity and since while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Andurkar.