1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10614 OF 2009 Vasant Shivram Patil ...Petitioner v/s Secretary, District Pariviksha and Anurakshan Sanghatna (Remand Home), Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane ...Respondents Mr J.R. Rane for Petitioner. Mr Arshad Shaikh with Mr Rakesh Dave i/b M/s N.N. Vaishnawa and Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 2ND MARCH 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner prays for a order setting aside the order dated 8th October 2002 and reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No.1. His services were terminated by order dated 8th October 2002. That order was challenged in writ petition No.4220 of 2003. That petition was decided by order dated 4th September 2003. The Court found that the departmental enquiry as per law was not held. Therefore, the Court directed holding a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. During the pendency of the enquiry, he was treated to be under suspension. In this background, the petition has been filed. The petitioner has not asked for any direction for completion of the enquiry in the petition. When we asked the learned counsel to show us whether there is a prayer for completion of the departmental enquiry, all that he pointed out was prayer clause (a). Prayer clause (a) does not 3 mention even enquiry. The only relief petitioner could have sought in this petition is a direction to his employer to conclude the enquiry at an early date, but such relief is not claimed and therefore, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner considering the charge that is levelled against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out an order dated 4th February 2010 passed in criminal revision application No.647 of 2008. From that order, it appears that though the Magistrate had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under section 354 Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court had acquitted him. In our opinion, that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Criminal Court will not have any impact on the conduct of the enquiry against him. The only relief petitioner could have asked for was an early conclusion of the enquiry. The employer by letter dated 15th December 2003 communicated to the petitioner that the enquiry has been completed and the earlier order of dismissal has been confirmed by an order dated 29th November 2003. What is 4 interesting is that despite the reply filed by the employer, there is no challenge to the order dated 29th November 2003 terminating the services of the petitioner. We thus find that the petition is entirely misconceived, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )