IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4012 OF 2009 Sow. Kamal Ramesh Ingle ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Dr. Shrikant K. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr N.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondents no.4 & 5; Mr N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate holding for Mr D.V. Soman for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 11th September, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.2.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner prays that the aforesaid order be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service and also prays that the suspension period may be treated as duty period. 2. Mr Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that by an order dated 6.6.2009 the petitioner has been reinstated pending the decision of the enquiry. Since the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending the enquiry which has already commenced, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of suspension. Insofar as prayer clause (D) is concerned, that is an order which the authorities are required to pass after the conclusion of the enquiry. At this stage, during the pendency of enquiry, such directions for treating the suspension period as duty period cannot be passed. 3. Since the enquiry has already commenced and since the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation, we direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. 4. At this stage, Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition. We accordingly dismiss the petition as withdrawn with no order as to costs with the aforesaid direction for conclusion of the enquiry expeditiously. It is needless to state that the petitioner obviously would have the liberty of challenging the order passed pursuant to the enquiry, which is being conducted, if the order is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp4012.09