1 wp-6260-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6260 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Vijay Krishna Aher ..Respondent Mr. A.,B. Vagyani, AGP for the petitioner. Mr. N.V. Bandivadekar, for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE: 5th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned A.G.P., for the petitioners. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.667 of 2009. 2. Pending the trial in Special Case No.7 of 2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 12th November, 2003 and in the said case he came to be 2 wp-6260-10 acquitted on 1st December, 2007 of all the charges. He, therefore, submitted a representation for reinstatement in service and he was so reinstated on 8th September, 2008. However, on 2nd April, 2009 the State Government passed an order denying him the salary for the period of suspension and the said order was challenged in O.A. No.667 of 2009. 3. A copy of the acquittal order passed in Special Case No.7 of 2004 is placed on record and the Tribunal was justified in observing that the respondent was acquitted by a reasoned judgment. The learned Special Judge in his acquittal order observed that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the amount by the present respondent beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The Tribunal also relied upon its earlier decision in O.A. No.386 of 2007. Undoubtedly the order of acquittal has received finality as there is nothing on record to show that the State Government has challenged the said acquittal order in an Appeal and any such appeal is presently pending before this Court. The respondent was not suspended pending the trial for an offence arising from his private/family life. At the same time the petitioners did not take any steps to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent notwithstanding the pending of trial in Special Case 3 wp-6260-10 No.7 of 2004, as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules. In these obtained circumstances the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order dated 2nd April, 2009. 4. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the Petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)