1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5718 /2010 (Ramesh Dhansingh Rathod vs. D.S. Kaore, Inquiry Officer and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 17th January, 2011. Heard Mr Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bharati Dangre, learned Addl. Government Pleader for respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is in respect of non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry which was initiated by the respondents with effect from 10.8.2010, in view of the liberty granted by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 10.6.2010. The learned Addl. Government Pleader has submitted that as per the order of the Tribunal though the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 12.11.1986 came to be set aside, the respondents were given liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner from the stage mentioned in sub-rule (11 ) 2 of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. Learned AGP further submitted that in clause (d) of the operative part of the judgment and order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, it is observed that after the result of enquiry, the respondents may take a decision about reinstatement of the petitioner with or without back wages. It is, therefore, contended that the till such time the departmental enquiry is over the question of considering the reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise and in absence thereof, the question of considering the request for petitioner for grant of subsistence allowance at this stage does not arise. We have considered the grievance of the respective counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that the dismissal order of the petitoner dated 12.11.1986 as well as appellate order dated 19.1.1993 passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department came to be set aside by the Tribunal. However, in view of the liberty granted to the Department, the Department has initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and on conclusion thereof, it is open for the Department to take a decision in respect of the reinstatement of the petitioner including grant of back wages. It is in these circumstances, at this stage, the question of considering the request of subsistence allowance, in our view, is 3 premature. Writ Petition suffers from lack of merit. The same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare