JUDGMENT :- The application is filed for giving direction to Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad ('MAT' for short) to take action against respondent No.2, Deputy Secretary of Department of State Government under section 193 of Indian Penal Code (' I.P.C.' for short). The applicant in person is heard. He requested for giving such directions under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short). The learned Appellant opposed to the proceeding. 2. It is the case of applicant that in TA No. 1080/1991, which was pending before MAT. respondent No.2, Officer of Government. had filed false affidavit and thereby committed offence under section 193 of I.P.C. It is his case that in the affidavit, she made false allegations that in the meeting of Committee constituted for making recommendation of promotion, the Committee came to the conclusion that petitioner was not fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildar and so, the promotion was denied by the Committee to the applicant in the year 1980. He took this Court through a copy of Government Gazette in which promotion was given by the Government to him. It appears that the Government prepared seniority list and gave promotion which was subject to the decision of writ petition pending in this Court. It appears that the Committee had recommended him as mentioned in the Gazette, but the Government had rejected the claim that his name was deleted from select list by the Commissioner malafidely. 3. The order made by MAT in Misc. Application No. 179/2003 shows that Tribunal had opportunity to see the entire record, the record which was before the Committee. The Tribunal considered the fact that the petitioner was superseded in the year 1975, but he was given promotion in the year 1980 and accordingly, the seniority was fixed. The applicant wanted deemed promotion to the post of Deputy Collector by presuming that the deemed date for promotion to the post of Tahsildar was 10.11.1975. The order shows that as per the record, the Committee had recommended him for the promotion to the post of Tahsildar in the year 1980. As per the observations made by the MAT, the contents of the affidavit filed by the present respondent No. 2. were as per the facts and as per the original record. The Committee considered both the contents of the affidavit and the contents of the Gazette already referred. As per the observations made by the MAT, the contents of the affidavit filed by the present respondent No. 2. were as per the facts and as per the original record. The Committee considered both the contents of the affidavit and the contents of the Gazette already referred. Even if it is presumed for moment that the contents of the affidavit that Committee had not recommended the name of applicant for promotion to the post of Tahsildar were not correct, these contents did not cause any harm to the applicant as he was already given promotion to the post of Tahsildar prior to the date of affidavit. 4. In respect of the present matter, it can be said that the provisions of sections 195, 340 and 345 of Cr.P.C. need to be used. When application in this regard is received, it is up to the concern Court/Tribunal to decide as to whether the action is warranted. It is discretionary power. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that the Tribunal has not committed any error on facts in refusing to take such action. No interference is warranted in the order made by MAT. 5. In the result, the application stands rejected. Rule is discharged. Application dismissed.