1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2714 of 2005 Prakash v. The State of Maharashtra and anr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner. Mr S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr P.D. Meghe, Adv for respondent no.2. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ Dated : 19th November 2008 1. Heard Mr N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for respondent no.2. For the proved misconduct, petitioner was removed from service. On the same allegations, he was prosecuted. It appears that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. In revision, ther State Government reduced his punishment from removal to withholding of annual increments for three years vide order dated 23rd March 2001. Based on this, the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Wardha issued order dated 19th May 2001 directing reinstatement of petitioner. It was stated in the said order that direction from the 2 Government will be sought as regards the interrgnum period undergone in suspension and removal. The State Government then by its order dated 9.1.2003 directed that the suspension period should be treated as such and the period during which petitioner was removed from service, should also be treated as suspension as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of rule 70 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment During Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Baban Shriram Wafare v. ZP, Ahmednagar reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 390, specially paragraph 4 thereof to submit that rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 deals with different situation and does not deal with the situation where the Government servant is required to be reinstated on account of his acquittal by the Court. The submission of learned counsel that rule 70 does not apply, is without any substance, because the Division Bench has held that rule 70 does not apply when reinstatement is by the Court because of acquittal. In this case reinstatement of the petitioner is ordered by the Departmental Authority in revision and, therefore, rule 70 of the Rules will apply. Perusal of proviso to the said rule shows that the Government has limited power in relation to directing payment of pay and allowances. Validity of that proviso has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be 3 said that the State Government has exceeded jurisdiction or has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction. Petition is without substance. It is accordingly rejected. Judge. Judge. hsj