1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2042 of 2007 Shri Anil Pandurang Jadhav. .. .. Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.A.M. Joshi for petitioner. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for respondent Nos.3 & 4. ----- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 14 th January 2008 P.C. : 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “ (a) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue Rule in this petition. (b) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing / setting aside the order of suspension issued by the Respondents with effect from January 2005 to the Petitioner and direct the Respondents to pay him all the consequential benefits. (c)The Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to resume his duties from July 2005 from the date of this court's order with all consequential benefits. 2 (d) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner's suspension allowances due and payable to him from July 2005. (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to resume his duties and to pay him salary which is due to him. (f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the Petitioner's suspension allowances due and payable to him from July 2005 and continue to pay him till he is under suspension. (g) The Petitioner be awarded costs. (h) Other just and equitable orders be passed in the interest of justice.” Admittedly, the suspension order has been revoked by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, prayer (b) does not survive. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We note the presence of the petitioner in our court today. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the letter dated 1.1.2005 addressed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner in 3 which it is stated that the petitioner has admitted his guilt and tendered apology. Learned Counsel pointed out that a criminal case in respect of the subject- matter of the inquiry, which is dropped, is pending in criminal court. He submitted that the petitioner has, in fact, not admitted his guilt and, therefore, anxiety of the petitioner is that this would be treated as admission of the guilt by the criminal court. We appreciate the submission of the learned counsel. Record does not show that the petitioner has admitted his guilt. Therefore, the criminal court, which is seized of the matter, shall deal with the case independently uninfluenced by the statement made by the 2nd respondent in letter dated 1.1.2005. The criminal court shall not interpret it to mean that the petitioner has, in any way, admitted the guilt or tendered the apology. 2. In view of this clarification, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to resume his duties. The petitioner may resume his duties within a week. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to resume his duties. We record the statement made by learned counsel on 4 instructions of the petitioner that in view of the above, the petitioner does not wish to press prayer (d) of the petition, which pertains to payment of suspension of allowances and salary from July 2005 till date. The period of January 2005 till date shall not be treated as break in petitioner's service. 3. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)