- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 7969 OF 2008 Ashok Nivrutti Walasane ..Petitioner Vs. Mandangad Taluka Vikas Mandal Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Santosh Narwadi i/b M/s. M. P.Vashi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke, for Respondent No.2. Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2010. P.C. : 1. ` Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 and respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No.3 School. The petitioner was suspended vide an order dated 5th April 2008 by the Management without following the procedure contemplated - 2 - under rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Services) Rules 1981. It is contended that the Management has not obtained the previous permission of the Education Officer before issuing the order of suspension of the petitioner. It is further contended that even otherwise 120 days from the date of suspension were already over and therefore, in view of the settled position in law, the order of suspension, in the circumstances, stands vitiated, since no departmental inquiry is initiated against the petitioner by the Respondent No.1 Management till this date. 2. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Education Officer vide communication dated 1st September 2008 which is annexed with the petition, has already directed Respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner in his original post as an Assistant Teacher/ in-charge Head Master. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in spite of communiction by the Education Officer, the Respondent Management failed to reinstate the petitioner. Hence, the present petition for necessary direction. It is submitted that though respondent No.2 was served and the matter was earlier listed on couple of occasions, neither the respondent No.2 nor his - 3 - counsel remained present 3. The learned AGP does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact of issuance of communication dated 1st September 2008 whereby the Respondent No.1 Management was directed to reinstate the petitioner in his original post. The learned AGP further brought to our notice that since the Respondent Management has not complied with the directions of the Education Officer, the non-salary grants of the School has been stopped, however, the Respondent Management even then did not obey the directions issued by the Education Officer. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is evident that action of the Respondent Management is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 33 of 1981 Rules and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The directions issued by the Education Officer to reinstate the petitioner, in the circumstances, in our view are sustainable in law and ought to have been complied with by the Respondent Management. In spite of service of the notice, neither the Respondent Management nor its counsel remained present on many - 4 - occasions when the matter was listed. There is no point in keeping the matter pending, merely because Respondent Management chooses not to appear before this Court, for the reasons best known to them. 5. In the circumstances, the suspension order dated 5th April 2008 is quashed and set aside. We dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order in the post of the Assistant Teacher/ in-charge Head-Master, togetherwith the benefit of continuity in service and full back-wages. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]