1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4555 OF 2009 Dhondiram s/o Jaywant Patil ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent – State. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th July, 2009 PER COURT : By this petition the petitioner takes exception to the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 7.7.2009 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9.9.2008 placing the petitioner under suspension on account of registration of offence vide Crime No.35 of 2008 under section 147, 148, 149, 325, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, filed the aforesaid Original Application. The Tribunal, considering the scope of section 11 of the Maharashtra Village Police Patil Act, 1967 came to the conclusion that the aforesaid provision conferred jurisdiction on the District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate who 2 was competent to appoint a Police Patil to suspend the Police Patil on account of a pending Departmental Enquiry or an inquiry and a trial in criminal prosecution against such Police Patil. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the petitioner was prosecuted, arrested and later on released on bail, the investigation was going on. It was an “inquiry” within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate was seized of the said offence and, therefore, no interference was warranted. 2. Mr Mukhedkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the word “inquiry” which is contemplated in section 11 of the said Act is an inquiry either ordered to be conducted by a Court or a Magistrate. In the present case, the offence came to be registered and thereafter the petitioner came to be arrested and was produced before the Magistrate. The application filed by the petitioner for seeking his release on bail was entertained by the Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner was released on bail. As a consequence, the petitioner was required to furnish the necessary bonds before the Magistrate. In the light of that, it cannot be urged before us that the petitioner has not been arrested in an inquiry which is pending before a Magistrate. 3. Mr Mukhedkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged before us that the order impugned in the present petition is a mechanical order and has not been passed after arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the authorities. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission for the 3 reason that the order of suspension was preceded by a show cause notice and upon consideration of the show cause notice the authorities have issued the said order. In any event, undisputedly the petitioner was arrested in respect of a criminal offence and the investigation of the said crime is presently in progress. In the light of that, therefore, we do not find any error being committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the Original Application. In the light of that, no interference is called for. Petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] amj/wp4555.09