{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2009 Prakash Vasantrao Rasal Age-57 years, Occ-Junior Accounts Officer, Health Department, Zilla Parishad Ahmendgar, R/o 51, Ambika Housing Society, Ambika Nagar, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Collector And President of District Selection Committee, Ahmednagar 4. The Chief Executive Officer & Member District Selection Committee, Ahmednagar 5. The District Health Officer & Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Dr.Shrikant Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 {2} Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 29th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for several reliefs including that of quashing and setting aside the order by which the Departmental Inquiry came to be initiated and also challenges his suspension w.e.f. 23.03.2007. The petitioner also seeks relief of being given promotion from the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. May 2007 and other consequential benefits, including release of pension and other retiral benefits. 3. Undisputedly, a Departmental Inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, states on instructions that only one witness has remained to be examined in the Departmental Inquiry and the Inquiry Officer would endeavour to complete the said Departmental Inquiry as expeditiously as possible and {3} approximately within 4 months from today. In the light of the fact that the Departmental Inquiry is pending against the petitioner, the reliefs, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, cannot be granted and would be dependent upon the final outcome of the inquiry. We accept the statement made on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 that the Departmental Inquiry is likely to be concluded within four months from today. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, further states that on account of pendency of the Departmental Inquiry, provisional pension has been released to the petitioner. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, no interference is called for at this stage. In the event, despite the cooperation of the petitioner, conclusion of the Inquiry is delayed unreasonably, we grant the petitioner a liberty to file such appropriate proceedings as are available to the petitioner in law. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Rule stands discharged, subject to the liberty granted to the petitioner, with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1792-09