1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4797/2010. The State of Maharashtra and others. -VERSUS- Vijaykumar Wamanrao Dongre _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 06, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for petitioners and Shri R.V. Shiralkar, learned Counsel for respondent. Challenge is to adjudication by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 07.01.2009 in Original Application No. 367/2006. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found prolonged suspension of respondent bad and also noticed that he was receiving 2/3rd salary towards 2 subsistence allowance, it has therefore, quashed the suspension order. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for petitioners, points out that while doing so, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the old circulars issued by the State Government and a judgment based upon it. Our attention has been invited to the later policy decision which lays down guidelines. It is pointed out that said circular is dated 14.03.2008, and it is to be read along with the earlier Government Resolutions dated 20.07.2006 and 18.10.2007. It is urged that it is the province of the petitioner – employer to find out whether in facts and circumstances of a particular case the interim suspension should be continued or not. Attention is also invited to the specific meaning of Criminal offence of grievous nature, as explained in the guiding principles dated 18.10.2007, and it is pointed out that an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of 5 years or more, is treated as offence of grievous nature, and guidelines specifically stipulate that in such matter, suspension 3 has to continue even after grant of sanction to prosecute. Shri Shiralkar, learned Counsel for respondent points out that in present facts the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is dated 07.01.2009 and petition has been filed before this Court in August, 2010. The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has been complied with in November, 2009 and respondent is already transferred from Yavatmal, the place of alleged offence/misconduct to Malvan, where he is working. He further states that the charge sheet for proceeding with the departmental inquiry was already issued in 2003, but then in the departmental inquiry, there is no progress since 2006. We have considered the facts pointed out by both the learned Counsel. We find the challenge belated. At this stage, learned Additional Government Pleader points out that Rule was issued in the matter on 16.11.2010 and hence it was not open to the respondent to urge that the challenge as filed is, 4 belated. Shri Shiralkar, learned Counsel points out that Rule has been issued behind the back of the respondent and the respondent therefore, did not get any opportunity earlier to point out these facts. In view of the subsequent implementation of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and also the fact that the respondent is not working at Yavatmal, but had been transferred to Malvan, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the controversy in present facts. The contentions raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader are kept open for consideration in appropriate matter. Here the order is already implemented and no other circumstances necessitating suspension of respondent is pointed out. We are thus not inclined to interfere with the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. However, looking to the guiding principles as issued on 18.10.2007, it is open to the petitioner – employer to take review of the situation and if it finds it necessary to again place the respondent under suspension, the same shall be done in accordance with law. 5 If such suspension is ordered, it will be open to the respondent to challenge the same before the Competent Authority. With this liberty to petitioner, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd