WP No. 5027/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5027 OF 2009 Abdul Alim s/o. Abdul Hai, Age 54 yrs., Occu. Service (Suspended), R/o. Yusufia Colony, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Member Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Division, Aurangbad. 3. The Chairman, Executive Committee, District Rural Development Agency and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. ....Respondents. Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Dated : 13th October 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing directions to respondents to implement the order made by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division WP No. 5027/09 2 on 18.8.2008. By this order, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the administrative appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order made by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had passed the order of termination. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner was working as a Stenographer with the respondent No. 3. There were allegations of misappropriation of the amount of department and so the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Simultaneously, Anti- Corruption Department started making enquiry about the assets of the petitioner. The departmental enquiry was completed and the order of termination came to be passed. Anti Corruption Department filed Special Case bearing No. 11/2000 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Parbhani. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the appellate authority allowed his appeal on 18.8.2008 and so it was necessary for the department to reinstate him in the service. On this point, it was submitted for the respondents that the said decision of the appellate authority is challenged by the department by filing appropriate proceeding/revision before the State Government. WP No. 5027/09 3 4. A copy of judgment delivered by Special Judge under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is produced and it shows that on 31.3.2009 the petitioner came to be convicted for having disproportionate assets. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 15 months. It was submitted that this decision of Special Judge is challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal. 5. The aforesaid circumstances and the record show that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service due to the decision of conviction and sentence given against him in Special Case No. 11/2000 on 31.3.2009. The petitioner will have to wait till the decision of appeal, if any, filed against the said decision. In view of these circumstances, no order can be made in favour of the petitioner at this stage and so the writ petition stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/