: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4948 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.4948 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.4948 OF 2006 Shri Sunil Shankar Phapale ...Petitioner. Shri Sunil Shankar Phapale ...Petitioner. Shri Sunil Shankar Phapale ...Petitioner. V/s. V/s. V/s. 1.Thane Municipal Corporation 1.Thane Municipal Corporation 1.Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, Thane & Anr. ...Respondents. School Board, Thane & Anr. ...Respondents. School Board, Thane & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Shri R.S.Apte for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri R.S.Apte for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri R.S.Apte for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 15th December, 2006. DATE : 15th December, 2006. DATE : 15th December, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. Heard counsel for both sides. consent. Heard counsel for both sides. consent. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as an 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as an 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher with the respondents since 1993. As Assistant Teacher with the respondents since 1993. As Assistant Teacher with the respondents since 1993. As in a criminal case registered under Sections 384 and 420 in a criminal case registered under Sections 384 and 420 in a criminal case registered under Sections 384 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by Mumbra Police Station he was of the Indian Penal Code by Mumbra Police Station he was of the Indian Penal Code by Mumbra Police Station he was arrested and was in detention for more than 48 hours, he arrested and was in detention for more than 48 hours, he arrested and was in detention for more than 48 hours, he came to be suspended on 27-12-2005. However, after came to be suspended on 27-12-2005. However, after came to be suspended on 27-12-2005. However, after trial by the impugned judgment and order dated trial by the impugned judgment and order dated trial by the impugned judgment and order dated 10-5-2006, he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. 10-5-2006, he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. 10-5-2006, he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The State has not preferred any appeal against that The State has not preferred any appeal against that The State has not preferred any appeal against that : 2 : order of acquittal. In view of the said order of order of acquittal. In view of the said order of order of acquittal. In view of the said order of acquittal, on 22-6-2006 the petitioner was reinstated by acquittal, on 22-6-2006 the petitioner was reinstated by acquittal, on 22-6-2006 the petitioner was reinstated by respondent no.2. On 29-6-2006, respondent no.2 again respondent no.2. On 29-6-2006, respondent no.2 again respondent no.2. On 29-6-2006, respondent no.2 again issued an order revoking the order dated 22-6-2006 about issued an order revoking the order dated 22-6-2006 about issued an order revoking the order dated 22-6-2006 about his reinstatement and directed that his suspension order his reinstatement and directed that his suspension order his reinstatement and directed that his suspension order shall continue. Against that order, representation was shall continue. Against that order, representation was shall continue. Against that order, representation was made by the petitioner but no action was taken. made by the petitioner but no action was taken. made by the petitioner but no action was taken. 3. The impugned order dated 29th June, 2006 3. The impugned order dated 29th June, 2006 3. The impugned order dated 29th June, 2006 reveals that reveals that reveals that in response to a starred question raised in response to a starred question raised in response to a starred question raised in the Legislative Assembly, a letter dated 28-6-2006 was the Legislative Assembly, a letter dated 28-6-2006 was the Legislative Assembly, a letter dated 28-6-2006 was issued by respondent no.2 to the effect that issued by respondent no.2 to the effect that issued by respondent no.2 to the effect that disciplinary action is to be taken against the disciplinary action is to be taken against the disciplinary action is to be taken against the petitioner and, therefore, the reinstatement order dated petitioner and, therefore, the reinstatement order dated petitioner and, therefore, the reinstatement order dated 22nd June, 2006 was being cancelled. According to the 22nd June, 2006 was being cancelled. According to the 22nd June, 2006 was being cancelled. According to the petitioner, no departmental enquiry has been initiated petitioner, no departmental enquiry has been initiated petitioner, no departmental enquiry has been initiated against him and once, he was reinstated because of his against him and once, he was reinstated because of his against him and once, he was reinstated because of his acquittal, there could not be any justification to acquittal, there could not be any justification to acquittal, there could not be any justification to revoke the order of reinstatement unless departmental revoke the order of reinstatement unless departmental revoke the order of reinstatement unless departmental enquiry was initiated. enquiry was initiated. enquiry was initiated. 4. Shri Apte, the learned counsel for the 4. Shri Apte, the learned counsel for the 4. Shri Apte, the learned counsel for the respondents concedes that so far no departmental enquiry respondents concedes that so far no departmental enquiry respondents concedes that so far no departmental enquiry has been initiated. In view of this, it appears that has been initiated. In view of this, it appears that has been initiated. In view of this, it appears that respondent nos.1 and 2 have not yet made up their mind respondent nos.1 and 2 have not yet made up their mind respondent nos.1 and 2 have not yet made up their mind as to whether departmental enquiry should or should not as to whether departmental enquiry should or should not as to whether departmental enquiry should or should not : 3 : be initiated nor any action in that direction has been be initiated nor any action in that direction has been be initiated nor any action in that direction has been taken in spite of the order dated 29th June, 2006. In taken in spite of the order dated 29th June, 2006. In taken in spite of the order dated 29th June, 2006. In the circumstances, it appears that the order revoking the circumstances, it appears that the order revoking the circumstances, it appears that the order revoking the reinstatement order was without any justification. the reinstatement order was without any justification. the reinstatement order was without any justification. 5. In view of the above circumstances, respondents 5. In view of the above circumstances, respondents 5. In view of the above circumstances, respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner to his are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner to his are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner to his post as Assistant Teacher with all consequential post as Assistant Teacher with all consequential post as Assistant Teacher with all consequential benefits. benefits. benefits. 6. Rule made absolute in terms of the aforesaid 6. Rule made absolute in terms of the aforesaid 6. Rule made absolute in terms of the aforesaid directions. directions. directions. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)