1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2529 OF 1999 Zafar Hasnain Ali Hasan .. Petitioner V/s Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.C.J.Sawant, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.P.Chavan and Mr.V.M.Bhate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.M.Modle for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13th August, 2009. P.C.: 1. A short grievance made by the petitioner who was in the employment of Corporation as a teacher is that, by an order dated 17th July, 1997 he was placed under suspension pending the departmental enquiry against him. That order of suspension was withdrawn by an order dated 3.12.1997, but the petitioner was allowed to join duty subject to the result of the departmental enquiry. It is thus clear that the suspension was because of the departmental enquiry, and its withdrawal was also subject to the result of departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority was under duty to make order as to how suspension period is to be treated, but, by the order of imposing punishment, the punishment of stoppage of one increment 2 temporarily was made and the disciplinary authority has not taken any decision in respect of suspension period for the period from 19.7.1997 to 4.12.1997. Petitioner therefore has filed this petition challenging the order of keeping the suspension period undecided and directing the Corporation to make full payment of salary for the period during which he was placed under suspension i.e. the period from 19.7.1997 to 4.12.1997. 2. We have been informed that the FIR, because of which the period of suspension was kept undecided by the punishment order, no more exist and no criminal prosecution is pending. The petitioner has also retired from service. 3. In our opinion suspension was ordered pending the departmental enquiry and it was withdrawn subject to the result of departmental enquiry. Therefore, it was for the corporation to state in the order imposing punishment as to how suspension period is to be treated. There is no order made by the Corporation as to how suspension period is to be treated. In our opinion, considering that the suspension was pending the departmental enquiry and in the departmental enquiry only a minor punishment of temporarily withholding one increment was imposed, the punishment of withholding pay for the suspension period would have been unreasonable. 3 4. In our opinion, taking overall view of the matter and considering the nature of punishment imposed on the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service, following order would meet the ends of justice:- ORDER “Corporation is directed to make payment of full salary to the petitioner after deducting the amount that may have been paid to the petitioner as suspension allowance from 19.7.1997 to 4.12.1997. Payment to be made within a period of four weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.” (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)