1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2163 OF 1994 Antu S/o Chandu Khandezode Through its L.Rs. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others ..RESPONDENTS ... None for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4. Shri N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents State CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9th MAY, 2010. PER COURT: The petition has been directly filed, challenging the issuance of show cause notice / order of suspension, the departmental proceeding and also the final termination order. The petition is filed without exhausting alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal as provided Under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. 2. Since the petition is already admitted, it could not have been dismissed on that ground 2 alone. However, the perusal of pleadings would reveal that various allegations and counter allegations have been made by the parties in the pleadings against each other. It is not possible for this Court to go into such disputed questions. In any case, we find that for establishing the contention of the petitioner it would be necessary for the parties to lead their evidence in that behalf. We are afraid that such an exercise would not be permissible in our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Apart from this Shri S.D. Kulkarni, the learned counsel on behalf of management submits that by an interim order passed by this Court the interest of the petitioner is protected and the same may kindly be vacated by this Court. 2. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for any interference. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 2163.94 WP