vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4624 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.4624 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.4624 OF 2003 1. State of Maharashtra Through Additional Chief Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32 2. The Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai 3. Special Police Inspector General Maharashtra State, Mumbai 4. Superintendent of Police Sangam Bridge, Pune Railway, Pune ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Vijay Prakash Shendge Building No.10, Room No.1684 Maharashtra Housing Board Colony Yerawada, Pune-411006 ... Respondent Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Petitioners None for Respondent CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J & V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J & V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. J. J. DATED: FEBRUARY 10, 2006 FEBRUARY 10, 2006 FEBRUARY 10, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.): . By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application of the employee of the Police Department holding that enquiry cannot be conducted by the officer/s belonging to the Police Department itself. : 2 : The Tribunal did not, while recording the said finding, consider the application on merits pertaining to particular charges levelled against a departmental candidate. The question is as to whether such enquiry is to be conducted or not as considered in judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v/s. Dilip Anant Surve, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 1998 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 1998 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 1998. It has been clearly laid down by this Court that exercise of power under Articles 162 and 309 is distinct and for the purpose of making rules under Article 309, power under Article 162 is to be exercised. It was, therefore, held that the power to hold departmental enquiry flows from the power to take disciplinary action. 2. That being the position, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was obviously wrong in allowing the application and setting aside the departmental enquiry. As a result, this writ petition has to be allowed and the order impugned therein is to be set aside and the matter is remanded for decision on merits. More than four years have passed since the order has been made. As a result of the order, the employees concerned were reinstated, some of whom have retired and some still continue in service. 3. The impugned order in this petition is set : 3 : aside. The Original Application is remitted back to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law. Status quo as of today shall be continued for a period of eight weeks from today and the Original Applicant shall be at liberty to make interim application for continuance or grant of interim relief, as may be necessary. The Tribunal shall decide the matter as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)