1 wp-9809-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9809 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Manoj Nimbalkar .. Respondent Mr. A. B. Vagyani, AGP for petitioner. Mr. Pratap Patil for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DECEMBER 22, 2010. P.C. 1. This writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, is directed against the order dated 5/3/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 877 of 2009. 2. The respondent (Original Applicant) while working under the 2 wp-9809-10 E.G.S Branch of the Collectorate at Solapur was suspended on 11/7/2005 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. A charge-sheet was served on him on 29/10/2005 and a departmental enquiry was also instituted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 9/3/2009 and held that the charges levelled against the applicant were not proved. It appears on 17/3/2009, the Review Committee of Pune Division decided to continue the applicant’s suspension and, therefore, on 26/5/2009 the Collector, Solapur issued an order declining to withdraw the suspension order and to continue the applicant under suspension till the conclusion of the trial of the criminal case filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant, therefore, approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 877 of 2009 and by the impugned order he has been directed to be reinstated within two weeks. 3. Admittedly, as of now, the suspension order has been withdrawn and the applicant has been recalled to join his duties as per the order dated 17/3/2010. Thus, the impugned order has been implemented. Even otherwise, when the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 9/3/2009 and held that the charges were not proved, there was no justification to continue with the suspension order which was issued only on account of contemplation/pendency of departmental enquiry. The applicant had earlier 3 wp-9809-10 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 726 of 2007, challenging the dismissal of his appeal against the order of suspension and the O.A. was allowed to be withdrawn with a direction to review the order of suspension. The reasoning set out by the Tribunal in support of the impugned order cannot be said to be grossly erroneous to cause interference with the same and hence the challenge thereto must fail. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)