1 cri-wp-2250-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2250 OF 2011 Rajkumar Hari Sarnaik .. Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police Kolhapur and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware for petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. August 09, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the complaint dated 2/11/2010. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee with the Education Board of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and it appears he was suspended pending a Departmental Enquiry. The Administrative Officer Shri Giri initiated the action of suspension, Enquiry Officer was appointed along with the Presenting Officer and a department enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on account 2 cri-wp-2250-11.doc of that he remained under suspension for more than three years. He alleges that all the officers concerned i.e. Shri Giri, Shri Ajitkukar Potdar, Shri Sambhaji Powar, Shri Arun Kolekar, Shri Mohan Sarvalkar and Shri Rangnath Rawal are responsible for his continued suspension and the departmental enquiry. The complaint stated that Shri Potdar was the Administrative Officer, Shri Sambhaji Powar was the Presenting Officer and Shri Arun Kolekar was the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner further alleges that all these officers belong to a higher caste and he being a member of the Scheduled Caste (Mahar), the departmental action has been initiated against him deliberately and on that count he has suffered immensely. 2. If the petitioner has any grievance relating to his service or suspension or delay caused in conducting the enquiry or the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has a remedy under the Service Rules. In our considered opinion, a complaint for an offence punishable under the IPC or under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1959 would not lie in such a case. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner prays, (a) for directions to 3 cri-wp-2250-11.doc take action against the above named officers and arrest them and (b) to quash the departmental proceedings. 4. If C.R. No. 4 of 2011 has been registered with the Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, it is for the IO to take appropriate steps as required under the Cr.P.C. and in any case the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur was pleased to reject the application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the petitioner’s case is actuated by the departmental action and, therefore, we do not find any case made out to entertain the petition for the reliefs prayed for. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)