1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4689 OF 2009 Arun s/o Rangnathrao Dhokte .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri M.S.Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri Dilip Bankar Patil, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 15th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the order dated 8.4.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. The principal challenge on which this petition takes exception to the said order is that the said order has been passed in contravention of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. It is the contention of the petitioner that Rule 3 of the said Rules contemplates the placing of an employee under suspension where the disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or 2 is pending. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner no enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner when the impugned order of suspension came to be served on the petitioner. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. At paragraph 9 of the affidavit- in-reply, it is stated that after the petitioner was placed under suspension, a show cause notice dated 14.7.2009 alongwith Schedule 1 to 4 intimating the details of the charges, relevant documents to be relied upon, the names of the witnesses etc. had been sent to the Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur who had in turn sent it to the Block Education Officer, Kannad for serving the aforesaid communication. The aforesaid documents initially, it appears, could not be served on the petitioner as the petitioner had not reported at the office of the Block Education Officer. 4. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules contemplates the placing of the employee under suspension where a disciplinary enquiry is contemplated against him. The aforesaid material, no doubt, issued after the petitioner was placed under suspension clearly indicates that an enquiry was contemplated against him. The affidavit-in-reply clearly discloses that when the petitioner was placed under suspension, an enquiry was contemplated against 3 him. In the light of that, therefore, we do not find any case being made out to justify interference in the order by which the petitioner is placed under suspension pending the holding of the departmental enquiry. We, thus, see no merit in the petition. It is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. We, however, direct the authorities that if the petitioner co- operates, the enquiry be conducted in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4689.09wp)