WP/10819/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10819 OF 2010 PUROSHOTTA MHADAV KULKARNI V/S FOSTER DEVELOPMENT AURANGABAD ... Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.V.Adwant, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 & Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. Dated : March 8, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the suspension order dated 12.10.2010. The petitioner has also prayed for allowing him to perform his duties as a Principal. 3. Shri Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the action of suspension taken by the management on two grounds, firstly; the person who claims to be a Secretary of the trust, and who has issued the order of suspension had no authority to issue such order. In other words, he submitted that signatory of the impugned order is not a Secretary of the trust. Secondly, he contended that the order of suspension is malafide. He submitted that since the petitioner opposed an appointment of one Miss Anupama Pathrikar as a Medical Director of the College and Hospital, the Management has taken the impugned action against him. WP/10819/2010 2 4. We do not find any merit in the submissions advanced by Shri Barlinge, learned Advocate for the petitioner. There is no dispute that departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and the charge sheet, having several charges of serious nature, has already been served upon the petitioner. Initially, the institute had not suspended the petitioner but having found his interference beyond a particular limit in the administration of college so also the departmental enquiry instituted against him, the institution passed a resolution and suspended him. It is well settled that the power to appoint includes power to suspend or dismiss and the right of the employer to put the employee under suspension pending departmental enquiry is an unqualified right. The management can exercise such right to ensure that the free and impartial enquiry is conducted into the charges levelled against the delinquent. Keeping that in view and considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension 5. In so far as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the signatory of the impugned order of suspension is not a Secretary of the trust and that he had no authority to issue the suspension order, cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition since the issue is pending before the learned Charity Commissioner. 6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) ... akl