171wp1800.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1800 of 2010 (Abdul Sayeed s/o. Abdul Aziz .vs. Urdu Education Association and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 17/01/2011. Heard Mr.S.V.Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.M.A.Vaishnav, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 4. This petition is directed against the order dt. 12.4.2010 passed by the President, Urdu Education Association, Chandni Chowk, Amravati (respondent no.1) whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Assistant Teacher. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the power to suspend vests in respondent no.1/management; however, same is required to be exercised by the Management after proper application of mind and on the basis of material available on record and not on the 171wp1800.10.odt 2 . direction of any other Authority. It is submitted that, in the instant case, the decision to suspend was not taken by the Management on its own, on the basis of the material available on record; however, the same was taken on the basis of the direction given by the Chief Executive Officer. It is submitted that respondent no.1 has filed written submission and in para 3 of the said submission, has categorically admitted these facts. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for respondent no.1 does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the order of suspension passed by respondent no.1 is not on the basis of decision taken by respondent no.1 on its own, but the same is passed on the basis of direction issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. In paragraph 3 of the submission filed by respondent no.1, respondent no.1 has specifically admitted that the order of suspension which is impugned in the petition is passed only to satisfy the Chief Executive Officer and to avoid any action against the 171wp1800.10.odt 3 . management by the Chief Executive Officer. It is, therefore, evident that the decision to suspend was never taken by the management after due application of mind and it is only taken to please the Chief Executive Officer. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order, in our view, is unjust and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order dt. 12.4.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE jais