1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5488 OF 2010 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar S. Sanstha ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for Petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for R.Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih for R.No. 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2010. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Relevant facts are that the Petitioner is running recognized secondary school. Respondent No. 3 is headmaster of that school. The Petitioner management decided to hold a departmental inquiry against Respondent No. 3 and also decided to place him under suspension. Therefore, they addressed a letter dated 4.5.2010 seeking permission of the Education Officer to place Respondent No. 3 under suspension pending the departmental enquiry. In terms of the provisions of Rule 33 of the Rules framed under M.E.P.S. Act. Education Officer by his order dated 31.5.2010 granted 2 permission to Petitioner to place Respondent No. 3 under suspension. It appears that Respondent No. 3 addressed letter dated 15.6.2010 to the Education Officer probably making grievance against the order dated 31.5.2010 and on the next date i.e. on 16.6.2010 the Education Officer issued order staying his order dated 31.5.2010. It is this order dt. 16.6.2010 which is challenged in this petition. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Education Officer does not have power under Rule 33 to stay his own order. It is further submitted that even assuming that he has power to stay the order, he must give reasons why he is staying the order. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. We do not propose to go into the question whether the Education Officer has power to stay the order made by himself under Rule 33. We leave that question open but in our opinion, there can be no debate that even assuming that the Education Officer has power to stay the order made by him granting permission to suspend the teacher or Headmaster under Rule 33, if he proposes to stay that order, he will have to give reasons why he is doing so. That according to us is a minimum requirement. In our opinion, therefore, the order dated 16.6.2010 which is impugned in this petition cannot be allowed to remain. That order will have to be set aside. However, we make it clear that the Education Officer shall have at liberty to make fresh order in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)