-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3361 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2894 OF 2008 Sakharam Kundalik Patil ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.D. Rane for respondent No.3. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. DATE: APRIL 08 , 2009 P.C. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order passed against him by the management dated 3rd June, 2002. The suspension order is placed on record at Exhibit-K to the petition. The suspension order has been passed against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had insulted one Assistant Teacher Smt. S.N. Bhosale and on that basis a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner under Section 7 (1) (d) of the Civil Rights Protection Act as well as under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code. It is alleged against the petitioner that he used -2- some abusive language to the said lady teacher and since criminal case was pending, he was placed under suspension. The Division Bench of this Court, while admitting this petition on 23rd July, 2002, has stayed the aforesaid suspension order, during the pendency of this petition. Subsequently the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case. 2. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 27th September, 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Kolhapur, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid case. The copy of the acquittal oder is also kept on record and marked “X”. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order is required to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-management on the other hand submitted that since the petitioner had been retired from the services on 1st September, 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation, the prayer regarding suspension order has become infructuous. 4. So far as the order of suspension is concerned, it is no doubt true that the same has already been stayed by this Court and in the meanwhile the petitioner has retired from service. However, in order to see that the management can calculate the retiral dues of the petitioner, this Court is also -3- required to pass an appropriate order in connection with the prayer regarding suspension order. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted from the offence for which he was placed under suspension, the order of suspension is quashed and set aside. There is also an additional ground for setting aside the suspension order and that is the superannuation of the petitioner. Admittedly, while he was in service, department has not commenced any departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid aspect also, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 5. In view of the above, the management is now directed to calculate the retiral dues payable to the petitioner and pay the same within two months from today. If there is any delay on the part of the management to pay the dues, the management will have to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for such delayed payment. In this behalf, if the petitioner is required to sign any document, he should sign the said documents/forms at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will report to the School on 13th April, 2009 to complete the necessary formalities. The management shall allow him to sign all necessary forms in order to enable the management to calculate the amount payable to the petitioner on account of superannuation. It is needless to state that if periodical increments of the petitioner were not released because of the suspension order, the management is directed to release the same and the retiral dues of the petitioner should be calculated -4- accordingly. 5. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 6. In view of the above order, no orders are required to be passed in Civil Application No. 2894 of 2008 and the same is disposed of accordingly. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.