* 1 * Cri.Appln-3738/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3738 OF 2010 Shri. Eknath Tukaram Kundle ....., Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent ***** Mr. Rajendra Rathod, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 26 th August, 2010. P.C. : 1. This application is filed on the apprehension of arrest by the applicant in C.R. No.83 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code with Alibag Police Station, District-Raigad on a complaint filed by Alibaug Upa- Abhiyanta Panipuravta Upa-Vibhaug on 28th July, 2010. The applicant had earlier filed an application before the Sessions Court for grant of * 2 * Cri.Appln-3738/2010 anticipatory bail which was rejected by the order dated 17th August, 2010. 2. At the relevant time, the applicant was working as Deputy Engineer at Alibaug. During his tenure, two wells in Toranpada Adiwasiwadi came to be repaired. The first repairs were carried in the year 2006-07 and the other in the year 2008-09. The expenses for repairs in the year 2006-07 were Rs.1,31,388/- and for the year 2008-09 were Rs.2,18,126/-. The complaint against the applicant is that though there was no actual work of repair carried out in the year 2008-09, he submitted false documents to the Engineer, Gramin Panipuravta, Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug under his signature and got an amount of Rs.2,18,126/- released in favour of the then Sarpanch, one Mr. Baby Desai. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that, the applicant was neither responsible for issue of tender for the work, nor, for payment of money. He also submits that the applicant has not received any benefits under the work carried in the year 2008-09. The departmental inquiries have been initiated against the applicant in connection with the incident. Though, he was suspended, the * 3 * Cri.Appln-3738/2010 order of suspension stood revoked by the order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug by exercising the powers under Rule 3 Sub-Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Sub-Rule 5 empowers the authority ordering suspension to revoke the order of suspension at any time. Revocation of suspension does not absolve the applicant of the allegations made against him. The learned counsel for the applicant, is also unable to make a statement as regards the closure of the departmental inquiry against him. In any case, considering the nature of the allegations made against him, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]