1 WP 4246.....2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2011 Manisha Panditrao Pardeshi @ Manisha Kishore Pardeshi Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Service, Presently under suspension R/o : At Ambapur, Tq. Sakri Dist. : Dhule. ....PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Dy. Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Chief Executive Officer Dhule Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. ....RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukul S.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatke, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.S.Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. 2 WP 4246.....2011 - [ J ] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2011 Devendra Panditrao Pardeshi Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Service, Presently under suspension R/o : At Kusumba, Tq. Sakri Dist. : Dhule. ....PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Dy. Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Chief Executive Officer Dhule Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. ....RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukul S.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatke, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.S.Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20/07/2011 3 WP 4246.....2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioners are the primary teachers with Zilla Parishad, Dhule. One Meerabai filed Complaint U/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Said Meerabai is the wife of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4247 of 2011 and the wife of the brother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4246 of 2011. The respondent no. 3, pursuant to the said Complaint, passed order suspending the petitioners. The same is assailed in the present Writ Petitions. 4. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the moment the complaint was filed, the petitioners had moved an application for anticipatory bail and were released on bail. They were not in custody even for a single day. The petitioners as such could not have been suspended any of the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services [ Discipline & Appeal ] Rules of 1964 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ]. No departmental enquiry was also initiated. Sub Rule ( 2 ) of 4 WP 4246.....2011 - [ J ] Rule 3 of the said Rules would not come into operation as the petitioners were not in custody even for a moment. The learned counsel further contends that the Appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner, which is not maintainable and it is disposed of as not maintainable. The learned counsel further states that even as per sub Rule ( 5 ) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the petitioners have filed representation before the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no. 3 and he has authority to consider the same. In alternate, the learned counsel submits that the said Chief Executive Officer may be directed to decide the said representation. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that the action has been rightly taken and if the representation has been made, then the same would be decided on its merits by the respondent no. 3. 6. In view of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioners are pending consideration with the respondent no. 3 and in view of sub rule ( 5 ) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the respondent no. 3 is empowered to take decision in respect of revoking the order of suspension. I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation made by the petitioners within the period of 15 days from 5 WP 4246.....2011 - [ J ] today. 7. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4246.........2011 - [ J ]