1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4366 of 2008 [Umesh R. Padole Vs. Edn. Officer, ZP, Bhandara, & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.D. Khamborkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Adv., for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 07th October,2008. We have heard Mr. Khamborkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The petitioner is working as a Headmaster of Modern High School & Junior College at Satona, Post-Warthi. The petitioner has been issued Suspension Order dated 1st September, 2008 under Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Rules, 1981, and the suspension has come into effect from 1st September, 2008. 2 Said suspension was approved by the Education Officer vide his communication dated 29th August, 2008, but again, unilaterally, the said order was withdrawn by the Education Officer on 19th September, 2008. The Education Officer issued yet another order on 25th September, 2008 and granted approval to the suspension order issued against the petitioner. We are not required to consider the orders issued by the Education Officer, and we confine the scope of this petition only to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out by the respondent-Management to place the petitioner under suspension in compliance with the requirementss of Rule 33 of the MEPS Rules. There is no dispute that the petitioner was issued a Show-cause-Notice dated 8th August, 2008, and we have noted that some of the charges of misappropriation, mismanagement and showing undue favour in recommending the proposal of petitioner's wife – Smt. S.S. Padole call for further enquiry and, thus, a case has been made out to institute a Domestic Enquiry against the petitioner. We have also noted that the Management has passed a Resolution on 31st August, 2008 to suspend the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent- Management stated before us that a charge-sheet will be issued to the petitioner within three 3 weeks from today, and the Domestic Enquiry will be completed within two to three months' time after the charge-sheet is issued, provided the petitioner co-operates in completing the enquiry expeditiously. We note down the undertaking of the petitioner to extend all his assistance to ensure that the enquiry is completed within a specific period of two to three months after the charge-sheet is served. Save and except the above stated undertakings of both the parties, the petition does not call for any interference in the impugned order of suspension, and the same is hereby rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|