1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2010 (Chief Executive Officer, Buldhana vs. President Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevak, Nagpur & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010. Heard Mrs. Varsale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Malokar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevak, has on 26.03.2010 set aside the termination order dated 16.05.2009 of Respondent No. 2 on the ground that it has retrospectively terminated him from 05.05.2009. The direction has been given to reinstate him without back wages. On earlier occasion, Mrs. Varsale, learned counsel with Shri Mardikar, learned counsel contended that the direction given to reinstate is unsustainable because Respondent No. 2 was alleged to have indulged in misconduct of a grave and serious nature. In criminal prosecution, he has not been acquitted on merits and the offence was compounded. 2 Shri Malokar, learned counsel has stated that there was no departmental enquiry conducted and hence the order of Grievance Committee cannot be interfered with. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP has invited attention to para 9 of the order of One Man Grievance Committee. It is seen that there was some compromise between the victim minor girl and present Respondent No. 2 and in view of that compromise, J.M.F.C. Acquitted Respondent No. 2 on 15.01.2010. Because of these developments, Respondent No. 2 was asked whether he is ready and willing to subject himself to departmental enquiry on last occasion. Today, Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit stating that he is ready and willing to face such enquiry. Shri Malokar, learned counsel argues that the said enquiry should be directed to be completed within a period of two months as Respondent No. 2 is out of employment and finding it difficult to survive. He has further urged that earlier application of mind in this respect by the petitioner should not come in the way of appreciation of material again. Mrs. Varsale, learned counsel has contended that the misconduct is of a grave and serious nature and hence time of four months should be given to complete departmental enquiry. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioner to hold 3 enquiry into the alleged misconduct as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from today. Respondent No. 2 shall co-operate with the petitioner in expeditious disposal of that enquiry and shall not take any undue adjournment. If as a result of enquiry, Respondent No. 2 is exonerated, the petitioner shall reinstate him back in service in accordance with law with continuity but without back wages. With these directions and observations, the impugned order passed by the Grievance Committee is modified to that extent. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.