1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 512 OF 2008 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Om Prakash Namdev. .....Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the petitioners Mr. G.S. Walia for the respondent. CORAM; BILAL NAZKI & A.P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED; 11TH APRIL, 2008. P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is the second round of litigation in this court. The respondent suffered an enquiry and eventually he was removed from service and he approached the tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order, which was challenged by the present petitioners in W.P.No. 1637 of 2005 which was decided by this court on 5-9-2006 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration and to decide the issue relating to as to whether the order of removal had been passed by the appointing authority or not. On re-consideration, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the order was passed by the authority, which was subordinate to appointing authority. The order of removal had been issued by DCM (Cog.) CSTM whereas the appointing authority was 2 DRM BBVT. Though it is contended by the petitioners that DCM was not subordinate to DRM and infact the order of appointment had been issued by one Mr. P.Balan not on his own but for DRMP. Without going into such controversy at this stage, we think, it will be in the interest of justice if the matter, for imposing punishment, is referred to DRM, who admittedly is either the appointing authority or is the officer superior to the appointing authority. As there is no dispute with regard to the conducting of enquiry or the report of the enquiry and the dispute is only with respect to the authority, who could have imposed punuishment, we set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent, it directs re-instatement of the respondent and remand the case back to DRM who shall after hearing with regard to punishment, pass appropriate orders. For the period till the DRM decides the matter afresh, the respondent shall be treated to be under suspension. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI J.) (A.P. DESHPANDE J.)