1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7570 OF 2009 Sharad Laxman Jadhwar ..Petitioner V/s Niwara Bahu Udeshiya Sanstha Barshi & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Surel S.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.D.S.Sabnis for Respondent No.1. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 16th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. Petitioner is employed with Respondent No.1. Pursuant to FIR lodged, the petitioner was arrested. The Respondent/management thereafter by their Resolution dated 16.8.2009 has placed the petitioner on suspension. That is the subject matter of the present challenge. 2. On behalf of the petitioner learned counsel submits that the action of the Respondent/management in suspending the petitioner in view of his arrest in respect 2 of criminal case lodged against him is without authority of the law. For that purpose learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Subhag S.Kavi V/s.State of Maharashtra & Others – 2007(1) Bom.C.R.412. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Under the Physically Handicapped School Code, 1997 both counsel agree that the provisions pertaining to suspension are similar to the provisions as contained under the MEPS Rules. 4. Rule provides for initial suspension by operation of law. In other words, the moment a person is arrested for a period set out therein, he is deemed to be suspended by operation of law. That suspension stands revoked the moment the person is released. Apart from that there is independent power in the management to suspend an employee in respect of the proposed chargesheet. 5. In the instant case the petitioner was in police custody between 15.3.2009 and 17.3.2009 and thereafter in judicial custody from 30.3.2009. The management has proceeded not on the deemed provisions but in exercise of their right to suspend the petitioner for the proposed mis­conduct. In our opinion therefore this action of the 3 management is different from the deemed suspension, which is by operation of law. On behalf of Respondent/management the learned counsel submits that the enquiry has already been initiated. 6. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Respondent/management is awaiting outcome of the criminal proceedings. In the meantime, petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance according to law. 7. We find no merit in this petition. Petition stands dismissed accordingly. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)