Bombay High CourtWP/1831/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ajay S/O Vasant Lad, Jr. Administrative Officer (Primary), Chandrapur v. The Zilla Parishad Chandrapur Thr. Chief Executive Officer And Another

2016-04-27Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande1 pages

wp1831.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1831/2016 Ajay Vasant Lad.vs.Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur through its Chief Executive Officer & another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 27, 2016 The petitioner, a Zilla Parishad servant, has been suspended by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is not in progress despite his suspension for a period of one year and despite the service of the charge-sheet on the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner has made an application for revocation of the suspension on 03.02.2016 in view of the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of the Rules of 1964, the suspension is not revoked till the date.

The learned counsel, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order under Rule 3 (5) of the Rules of 1964 on the application made by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order. Since, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is innocuous, without issuing notice to the respondents, we direct the respondent no.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner for revocation of his suspension and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE kahale