1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7316 OF 2010 Manohar Manikarao Kalwale, Age 63 yrs., Occu. Pensioner, Retired Govt. Servant as Police Head Constable, R/o. Shiva-Nagar, Plot No. 25-26, Garkheda, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad (Rural), Aurangabad. 3. The Accountant General (A & E)-II, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ....Respondents. Mr.N.R. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd March 2008, thereby directing that the period of suspension between 11th of April 1998 to 9th February 2000 should be treated as it is. 2 3. The petitioner was facing criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on account of that the petitioner was placed under suspension between 11th of April 1998 to 9th of February 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case. 4. The petitioner, therefore, applied for treating the period between 11th of April 1998 to 9th of February 2000 as a period spent on duty. However, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached to the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing original application. The same was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The perusal of the record would reveal that vide communication dated 30th December 2008 addressed by the respondent No. 2 to the Accountant General, Nagpur, he has certified that no departmental proceedings were pending or proposed against the petitioner. He has further certified that no act, which would be prejudiced or affected the superannuation of the petitioner, was committed by the petitioner. The only ground on which the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not acquitted honourarbly and therefore, the period of suspension cannot be treated as the period spent on duty. 3 6. The perusal of the judgment dated 29th of June 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yawatmal in Sessions Case No. 88/2005 would reveal that the petitioner has been acquitted as prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence in support of the charges. It is, thus, clear that the order impugned has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on totally erroneous presumption. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition will have to be allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B" with no orders as to costs and the period of suspension between 11th of April 1998 to 9th February 2000 is directed to be treated as the period spent on duty. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp7316.10