1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2009 Tulshidas S/o. Yemaji Zaveri. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 14th DECEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No.4 of 2005 for an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2007 in the High Court. The appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge and 2 substantive sentence was suspended. The petitioner was released on bail during pendency of the appeal. 3) By an order dated 11-8-2009 the respondent No.2 – Managing Director of the Corporation in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 13(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground of the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence stated therein. 4) The learned counsel Shri. S.S. Choudhari appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner strongly feels that he has good grounds for success in the appeal. The learned counsel submits that unless the dismissal order impugned in this petition is set aside the respondent No.2 would not reinstate the petitioner in case the petitioner is acquitted in the appeal. 5) We perused the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Prima facie we find that the dismissal order of the petitioner is based on the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge in the 3 proceedings under prevention of corruption law. In the light of the same and the fact that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence of corruption, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. We have noticed that the order of conviction is not stayed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6) The writ petition is dismissed. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.8145.09