that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his say on the Vigilance Report is false to the knowledge of the petitioner. It is apparent from the impugned order that on 17.04.2006, the petitioner was granted thirty days time to submit his say on the Vigilance Cell Report. The petitioner did not submit his say before the Scrutiny Committee within a period of thirty days or even thereafter. Admittedly, by notice dated 18.04.2012, the petitioner was called for hearing on 26.04.2012. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and was heard by the Committee. On that day also, admittedly, the petitioner did not submit his say on the Vigilance Cell Report. In this background, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner was not granted a reasonable opportunity to submit his say on the Vigilance Report. The petitioner has not submitted his say on the Vigilance Report though the Committee decided the claim of the petitioner six years after the petitioner had sought time for submitting the say on the Vigilance Report. It is conspicuous to note that the petitioner had, in the meanwhile, challenged the order threatening to terminate the services of the petitioner in the absence of the Caste Validity Certificate, before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in an original application in the year 2011. We fail to understand why the petitioner did not approach the Committee or this Court for an early decision on his caste claim. In stead of approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner could have as well approached the Scrutiny Committee with the say on the Vigilance Cell Report as the same was sought from the petitioner on 17.04.2006. We find that the petitioner had deliberately not submitted his say on the Vigilance Cell Report within a period of thirty days or till the matter was decided by the Scrutiny Committee in the year 2012. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing.
