: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4403 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4403 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4403 OF 2005 Poona Blind Men’s Association .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.K.S.Bapat for the petitioner. Smt.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.J.Rairkar for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 24th June, 2008. DATE : 24th June, 2008. DATE : 24th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner- institution is challenging the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune. That order has been passed in Appeal filed by the respondent No.3. 2. Admitted facts are that the respondent No.3 was in the service of the petitioner and was working as the Director of the institution. By an order dated 18.12.2003, he was placed under suspension because the institution proposed to hold departmental enquiry against him. The allegations against the respondent No.3 were of very serious nature. It appears that the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Appellate authority challenging : 2 : his suspension order. That appeal was filed on 22.12.2003. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the respondent No.3 was dismissed from service by order dated 20.10.2004. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has stated before us that after the dismissal order was served on respondent No.3, he has filed an appeal before the same Appellate authority against the dismissal order. What has been done by the Appellate authority by the order dated 31.5.2005 is that it has decided the Appeal filed by respondent No.3 against the suspension order, keeping his Appeal pending against the dismissal order. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. In our opinion, the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 against the suspension order dated 18.12.2003 became infructuous, the moment dismissal order passed on 20.10.2004 because in the appeal, challenging the dismissal order, the respondent No.3 could have challenged the order placing him under suspension also. What has been done by the Appellate authority by order dated 31.5.2005 is that it has decided the Appeal which has become infructuous and has directed that the suspension of : 3 : the respondent No.3 should be revoked and he should be taken on duty forgetting that in the meantime by order dated 20.10.2004, he has been dismissed from service. The order of dismissal is not set aside. Obviously, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to implement the order dated 31.5.2005. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, the order dated 31.5.2005 is illegal and null. Therefore, the order dated 31.5.2005 has to be set aside. The order dated 31.5.2005 challenged in the petition is, therefore, set aside. 6. However, it is clarified that it is open to the respondent No.3 to challenge the order suspending him during the pendency of the departmental enquiry in the Appeal that he had filed against the dismissal order. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)