1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1746 OF 2008 St. Michael’s High School. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w. T.R. Yadav i/b. M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Sreedharan, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Services Regulations Act), 1977. the Rule framed as under :- “33. Procedure for inflicting major Penalties : (1) If an employee is alleged to be guilty of (any of the grounds specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 28) and if there is reason to believe that in the event of the guilt being proved against him, he is likely to be reduced in rank or removed from service, the Management shall first decide whether to hold an inquiry and also to place the employee under suspension and if it decides to suspend 2 the employee, it shall authorise the Chief Executive Officer to do so after obtaining the permission of the Education Officer or, in the case of the Junior College of Education and Technical High Schools, of the Deputy Director. Suspension shall not be ordered unless there is a prima facie case for his removal or there is reason to believe that his continuance in active service is likely to cause embarrassment or to hamper the investigation of the case. If the Management decides to suspend the employee, such employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) stand suspended with effect from the date of such order. 3. An employee under suspension shall not accept any private employment. 5. an employee against whom proceeding have been taken on criminal charge or who is detained under any law for the time being in force providing for preventive detention shall be considered as under suspension for any period during which he is under such detention or he is detained by police for judicial custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours or is undergoing imprisonment, and he shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is relieved from detention and is in a position to rejoin duty after producing documentary proof of his release 3 (otherwise than on bail) or acquittal, as the case may be. An adjustment of his pay and allowances for such periods shall be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the employee being acquitted of charge or detention being held by the Court to be unjustified.” 2. However, by order dated 12th August 2008, the Division Bench of this Court disposed off the Petition as far as Respondent No.3 is concerned on the basis of consented terms, however, kept the matter for hearing in relation to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The argument placed before us is that under the Rules, the permission of the authority is essential to carry on the inquiry and placing an employee under suspension. The authority did not act on the application for a long period and liability to pay the dues is shifted upon the School even in case of default. This according to the Counsel for the Petitioner, is a sufficient ground to challenge the Rule and in any case, the concept of reasonable time will have to be applied to truly implement the Rule and to avoid undue prejudice to either side. 4. It is not in dispute before us that all the allegations between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 regarding payment of dues are withdrawn and the matter has been settled between the parties. Thus, the question raised need 4 not be decided in exercise of our writ jurisdiction in the present case. While disposing off this Petition, we direct the Secretary of Education to examine the issue raised and issue appropriate directions. The Writ Petition is disposed off with the above directions. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.