(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7175 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o. Shriram Saner, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Akshada Apartment, Adarsh Nagar, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Executive Director, T.I.D.C., Jalgaon. 3. The Chief Engineer, T.I.D.C., Jalgaon. 4. The Superintendent Engineer, CADA, Jalgaon. 5. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Department, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ. & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per Chief Justice) : 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 5th July 2010, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 1143/2009, thereby rejecting the petitioner's application against the order of suspension. 2. The petitioner is a Sub-Divisional Officer and was working at Irrigation Sub-Division, Chopda. The petitioner has been suspended by order dated 7th November 2009, on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a criminal offence of accepting illegal gratification. (3) 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made two grievances, one is that as per the complainant's case, it was the petitioner's superior officer, Shri Tejale, Superintending Engineer of the said Irrigation Division, who had asked the complainant to pay the money to the petitioner, for the Superintending Engineer as well as for the petitioner and that in spite of aforesaid allegation specifically made by the complainant, no action is taken against the Superintending Engineer because he is brother of an Under Secretary in the Mantralaya. The other grievance is that although the petitioner was suspended way back on 7th November 2009, no charge sheet is filed against the petitioner in the criminal court. 4. As far as first contention is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly held that in such matters, the petitioner cannot claim equal treatment on the basis of wrong decision taken by the authorities. 5. As far as second grievance is concerned, we are of the view that if charge sheet is not filed against the petitioner, in a criminal court, the same shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from today. 6. Subject to the above directions, the petition is (4) dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question of involvement, or otherwise, of the petitioner as well as the said Superintending Engineer in the alleged offence. (S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) (MOHIT S. SHAH) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE ......................... Puranik (PS) bgp/wp7175