1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1817 OF 2010 Suresh Govindrao Nawade Age 46 years, Occ-Service R/o Niwasi Muk Badhir Vidyalaya Parli, Tq. Parli, Dist.Beed. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Walfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [Copy served on G.P.H.C.A’bad] 2] Pradnya Niketan Edn.Society Degloor through Secretary Shri Lonikar, R/o Degloor Dist.Nanded. 3] Social Welfare Officer Beed. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri V.Bhavthankar Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.G.Patil,AGP for the respondent no.1. Shri S.B.Pulkutwar,Adv.for Respondent no.2. Shri S.S.Dambe,Adv.for Respondent no.3 2 .... WRIT PETITION NO.1822/2010 Ramesh s/o Vithalrao Gaikwad Age 50 years, Occ-Service R/o Niwasi Muk Badhir Vidyalaya Parli, Tq. Parli, Dist.Beed. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Walfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [Copy served on G.P.H.C.A’bad] 2] Pradnya Niketan Edn.Society Degloor through Secretary Shri Lonikar, R/o Degloor Dist.Nanded. 3] Social Welfare Officer Beed. .. RESPONDENTS ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 6 th OCTOBER, 2010. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SAYED,J.] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel for respective parties. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at admission stage. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioners impugn the order of suspension dated 15/2/2010 issued by respondent no.2 herein. The said order has been issued by respondent no.2 on the direction of the respondent no.3. 3] The petitioners were appointed as Special Teachers in respondent no.2 school. According to the petitioners, petitioners were sent for the training during 1996-97. It is the case of the petitioners that they have successfully completed the training. It appears that in the year 2005, there was enquiry conducted against petitioners on the ground that they 4 have not completed the training. The respondent no.3 vide communication dated 3/4-10-2005 addressed to the Head master of respondent no.2 directed to release the salaries of the petitioners as the enquiry against petitioners was complete. 4] It appears that subsequently, again vide communication dated 22/1/2010, respondent no.3 directed respondent no.2 to initiate proceedings against petitioners and suspend them since it was found that they had not attended the training. 5] Shri Bhavthankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that when the respondent no.3 in an earlier proceeding had found that there was no substance in the allegation against the petitioners that they had not attended the training, there was no occasion to again issue directions to suspend the petitioners. 5 6] Shri Dambe, learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the contrary submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioners have not completed the training and as such, the respondent no.3 has rightly directed respondent no.2 to issue suspension orders. 7] We have perused the communications addressed by respondent no.3 himself dated 3/4-10-2005 which clearly states that upon enquiry against petitioners, it has been found that nothing is incriminating against them and therefore, their salaries should be released. We have also perused the reply given to the petitioners by respondent no.3 under the Right to Information Act, which clearly states that the petitioners have completed the requisite training. 8] In that view of the matter, the action of respondent no.3 in directing suspension of the petitioner is not sustainable in law; for the same reason the consequential action which is 6 taken by respondent no.2 to suspend the petitioners is also not sustainable. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses “A” of the Petitions. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp1817-10