1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10428 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Bansilal s/o Mohanlal Agrawal .. RESPONDENT Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no. 311/2010 dt. 1-9-2010 thereby allowing the original application filed by respondent challenging the order of suspension. 2 Normally, the courts / tribunals ought not to interfere with the order of suspension, in as much as, suspension pendente lite enquiry against the employee is a right of the employer. However, in the peculiar facts and 2 circumstances of the case, particularly when the petitioner is likely to retire in a short period and that the learned tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons as to why it has found the present case to be extra ordinary case to interfere with the order of suspension, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of learned tribunal. 3 It is needless to state that in the event if the petitioners find that the present posting of the respondent at Jalgaon would cause hindrance in the departmental enquiry that is being initiated against the respondent, the petitioners would always be at liberty to transfer the respondent to some other place so that the departmental proceedings are not prejudiced by his presence. 4 We, therefore, dispose of the petition with aforesaid observations. ( K.K. TATED ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb/office/wp10428.10.odt