- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NOS.1679/2009 & 1680/2009 WRIT PETITION NO.1679/2009 Vasant Ramkrishna Varape. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri B.A. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- WRIT PETITION NO.1680/2009 Bappaswaheb Vinayakrao Dhavale. ..Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents.. ..... - 2 - Shri B.A. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & R.K. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE: 25.06.2009 PER COURT: 1] Both these petitions can be decided by this common order. In both these petitions, the petitioners, who are employees of the respondent – Zilla Parishad, impugn the orders by which they were placed under suspension. Show cause notices had been issued to the petitioners by the respondent – Zilla Parishad calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why a departmental action should not be initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their reply and after considering the reply, the order impugned in the present petitions came to be issued placing the petitioners under suspension. An affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Zilla Parishad clearly indicates that the departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioners and the same can be concluded within six months, provided the petitioners cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the inquiry. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged before us by placing reliance on Section 3(a) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, that the impugned order of suspension does not disclose that any departmental inquiry or action was contemplated against the petitioners. Section 3(a) reads as follows: - 3 - “3(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending,” Perusal of the aforesaid section clearly reveals that authority is conferred on the officers for placing any employee under suspension where a departmental proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. In the present case, the suspension was preceded by an issuance of show cause notice and ultimately the petitioners were placed under suspension. Inquiry has been initiated against them and the same is being concluded within six months. 3] It is also urged before us that the perusal of the allegations against the petitioners does not disclose any misconduct on the part of the petitioners. According to us, this is not a question, which can be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly when the inquiry against the petitioners is pending. 4] We accept the aforesaid statement of the respondents that the inquiry would be completed within six months. We further direct the petitioners to cooperate in the expeditious conduct of the inquiry against them. 5] We, thus, see no merit in the petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.K. Deshpande,J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c2560937