1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2010 Keshav S/o Somajirao Kasbe, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o At Post Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3. The Secretary, Shri Someshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Shri Someshwar Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. Through its Incharge Head Master... .. Respondents 2 Shri S. V. Chandole, Advocate h/f Shri V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns an order dated 27.03.2010 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 33(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981. 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be arrested in respect of an offence by the concerned police station on 3 22.03.2010. The petitioner ultimately came to be released on bail on 09.04.2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the suspension is continued beyond the period after he was released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 206. The Division Bench of this Court while interpreting Rule 33(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 held that the employee could be placed under suspension under Rule 33(5) only for such period during which he was in custody. It is therefore, prayed before us that the order of suspension be now quashed and set aside and the suspension be restricted for a period which the petitioner was in custody i. e. from 22.03.2010 till 09.04.2010. 4. We have heard Shri Chandole, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that in the light of Rule 33(5), the petitioner would not be entitled for the relief which is prayed for and the judgment referred to above, i. e. Madhukar Namdeo Patil vs. Chairman, Sudhagad 4 Education Society and others, does not lay down a correct law. 5. We have considered the arguments and according to us the judgment referred to above laid down correct law, even upon the bare perusal of provision of Rule 33(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, we do not find any reason whatsoever for taking a view different from the view taken by the Division Bench. Therefore, the petitioner succeeds in the petition and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent that the petitioner shall be deemed to be reinstated from the date the petitioner was released on bail. The petitioner, therefore, would be entitled for all consequential benefits arising on account of his reinstatement and quashing of the impugned order. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. 7. Mr. Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and 4 prays for four weeks time for suspension of this order in order to enable the respondents to file appropriate proceedings 5 before the Supreme Court. Request refused. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10 Authenticated copy ( B. S. Bodke ) P. A. to Hon'ble Judge