wp7990.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7990 OF 2010 Dattatraya s/o Bhimaji Kamble age 56 years, occ. service r/o Mohiniraj Nagar, Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division (Junior College ) Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune. 2 Education Officer For Higher Secondary Education Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 3 Kopargaon Taluka Education Society Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Secretary. 4 Principal K.J. Somaya Arts, Science & Commerce College, Kopargaon Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.V. Barde, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ===== wp7990.10 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8 th DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER B.R. GAVAI, J.) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dt. 1­1­2009 thereby suspending the petitioner. 3 Petitioner has been working with respondent / institution as teacher. On account of involvement of the petitioner in criminal case, he was arrested in the month of October 2008. As such, the petitioner was put under suspension from 1­1­2009. The petitioner was released on 30­6­2009. Thereafter since the respondents have not re­instated the petitioner inspite of the various efforts made by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has approached this court. 4 Continuation of suspension of the petitioner after 30­6­2009 is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhukar Namdeo Patil vs. Chairman Sudhagad Education Society and wp7990.10 3 others reported in 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 698. It has been held that in view of Rule 33(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, suspension beyond the period of custody was not permissible unless the Education Officer has granted approval for continuation of such suspension. 5 Be that as it may, now the respondent – management has issued order dt. 4­12­2010 vide which the petitioner has been issued an order of re­ instatement. However, the same is made subject to certain conditions. 6 In the result, we allow the petition by holding that suspension of the petitioner after 30­6­2009 was not permissible in law. The petitioner in pursuance to the order dt. 4­12­2010 has already joined the services. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall submit a proposal for payment of salary of the petitioner from the date on which he has joined services with respondent no. 2, within a period of two weeks from today. On such proposal being submitted, respondent no. 2 shall sanction the same and release the salary of the petitioner from the date on which he has joined. 7 Respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall pay suspension allowance to the wp7990.10 4 petitioner from the date on which he was suspended till the date on which he is actually re­instated. Same shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from today by crossed cheque. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb